Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock,Mr. SPEAKERin the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—

Milford Docks[Lords].

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Private Bills (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—

Sunderland Corporation Bill.

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Private Bill (Petition for additional Provision) (Special Report).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill he had made a Special Report, namely:

Sunderland Corporation Bill.

Special Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Beckenham Urban District Council Bill,

Glamorganshire Canal Company Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Saltburn and Marske-by-the-Sea Urban District Council Bill (by Order),

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Rhyl Urban District Council Bill (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

BELGIUM (CURRENCY DEVALUATION).

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the recent currency changes in Belgium, he will take the initiative in recommending the Tariff Advisory Committee to raise the duty on Belgian bricks in order to protect British employment in the brick
industry?

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the increasing imports of caŕpets from Belgium competing with the manufactures of this country and the likelihood of more intensive competition from that country in view of the devaluation of the belga, he will himself make a special representation to the Import Duties Committee, pointing out the situation which arises from this circumstance and the necessity for an increased duty on these
imports?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I would refer my hon. Friends to the full answer given to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) on the 4th April.

Sir A. KNOX: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that immediate action is required; otherwise, a large number of men will be turned out of employment in the brick industry; and that a really ruthless tariff is required and not merely 10 per cent.?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If my hon. and gallant Friend had retained in his memory the answer given on Thursday last, he would have seen that provision is made for immediate action if necessary.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many industries are
very alarmed about the present position and will he consider advising the Import Duties Advisory Committee to recommend adequate duties, and, should the price level in Belgium rise at a later date adjustments could be again made?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is because industries were alarmed that the answer was given on Thursday last.

BOOT AND SHOE TRADE.

Captain WATERHOUSE: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what findings were arrived at by the. Canadian Tariff Board on the application of the British boot and shoe trade representatives for a reduction in the import duty on ladies' leather footwear?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am informed that the Canadian Tariff Board have not recommended any alteration in the existing import duty on boots and shoes from this country. I am expecting to receive a summary of the Tariff Board's findings during the next few days, and I will send a copy to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Captain WATERHOUSE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that under the present arrangements Canadian goods of this class come here free while we suffer a tariff of 55 per cent.; that our trade with Canada is fast failing, and that their trade has increased by 3,000 per cent. in the last four years; and can he not make representations to the Canadian authorities?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: When the matter comes up for discussion with the Canadian authorities, I will certainly bear that fact in mind.

Captain STRICKLAND: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the present ad valorem tax on hand-made boots and shoes imposed by the Australian Government, plus freight and landing charges, amounts to 98 per cent.; whether such hand-made shoes are manufactured in Australia; and whether he will take steps to draw the attention of the Australian Government to the matter, with a view to a fairer adjustment on the higher value article?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Australian duty on hand-made boots and shoes was recently investigated by the Tariff Board,
and the United Kingdom industry submitted a case for a reduction of the present duty which amounts to 38¾ per cent. ad valorem, including primage duty. The report of the Tariff Board is not yet available.

Captain STRICKLAND: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what rate of duty is charged by Canada as a preferential duty on boots and shoes imported from this country; and how that rate compares with that charged by the United States of America on similar goods?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Canadian duty on United Kingdom boots and shoes is 22½ per cent. ad valorem. The duty on leather boots and shoes in the United States of America is 10 per cent. ad valorem or 30 per cent. ad valorem according to tariff classification.

Captain STRICKLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider taking action from this side to call the attention of the Canadian authorities to the vast injury that is being done to the hand-sewn trade, rather than wait till the matter comes up?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: We have provided under the Ottawa Agreements for a periodical survey of this kind, and I will see that this subject is mentioned.

Mr. LYONS: Does the right hon. Gentleman know when the next survey will be made in reference to the boot and shoe position?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot say.

IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the total exports from this country of steel products was manufactured from foreign imported steel in the years 1932, 1933 and 1934?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. NUNN: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of haematite iron ore imported into this country in each of the last three years, showing separately the amount imported into the port of Workington?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the question is not available, as imports of haematite iron ore are not separately recorded. Imports of iron ore into the port of Workington, including Harrington, amounted to 99,943 tons in 1932 and 143,090 tons in 1933. I understand that the bulk of these imports consisted of haematite iron ore. The corresponding figure for 1934 is not yet available.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is possible to prohibit the import of haematite iron ore into this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir, I do not think that would be a practical proposition.

Mr. BANFIELD(for Mr. MAINWARING): 6 and 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he can give any information about the special committee set up by the French Government to consider the increased duties imposed upon iron and steel products by His Majesty's Government; and whether the French Government has made any representations in the matter;
(2) whether he has received any report concerning the demand made by Belgian steel manufacturers upon their Government requesting that strong protests be entered against the increased British duties, and concerning the proposed list of British products to be excluded from Belgium as a retaliatory measure?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Representations have been made expressing the concern of the French and Belgian Governments at the recent increase in the duties on certain iron and steel products, but I have no information on the other matters referred to.

Mr. NUNN: 15.
asked the Secretary for Mines the amount of haematite iron ore used in this country during each of the last three years?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): It is estimated that the quantity of iron ore used in this country in the manufacture of haematite pigiron in 1932 was 1,377,000 tons, in 1933, 1,901,000 tons and in 1934, 2,600,000 tons.

FLOUR (IMPORT DUTY).

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will ask the Tariff Advisory Board to con
sider whether more efficient protection could be given to British millers, without damage to other British interests, by the substitution of a specific duty per sack of imported flour for the ad valorem duty which is at present imposed?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): It is open to British millers to make an application to the Import Duties Advisory Committee for the substitution of a specific for an ad valorem duty if they so desire.

WHISKY (TAXATION, CANADA).

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Canadian Government have reduced the duty upon Scotch whisky to £1 per proof gallon, and has, in addition, cancelled the import tax of 1½ per cent. on the duty-paid price; and whether he will inquire into the effect upon the revenue of Canada of the previous higher duty?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I have been asked to reply. It is the case that reductions on approximately the scale indicated have recently been made in the British preferential Customs Duty upon various spirits, including whisky, imported into Canada. As regards the second part of the question, I will ascertain what information is available, and communicate further with my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Would not a larger revenue be obtained if the price were reduced? Is it not the case that, whereas the British whisky trade used to pay 20 per cent. of the taxation of this country, it now only pays 4 per cent., because the tax is so high that the trade is killed?

Viscountess ASTOR: Would the hon. Gentleman inquire what effect an increased consumption of whisky has on the social, moral and spiritual well-being of the people?

CANADIAN TARIFF.

Mr. LYONS: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the particulars of tariff items that have been considered by the Canadian Tariff Board on the application of manufacturers in this country in pursuance of the Ottawa
Agreements, and the results of all such applications?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: As the answer is necessarily of a detailed nature and

CANADIAN TARIFF.


—
Items which have been considered by the Tariff Board as a result of request made by United Kingdom Government on behalf of United Kingdom manufacturers.
*British Preferential Tariff Rates at the time of Tariff Board Hearing
Tariff Board Findings.


Item.





551
Yarns, composed wholly or in part of wool or hair but not containing silk or artificial silk, n.o.p.
15 per cent, adval. Plus 11¼ cts. Per lb.
These items were covered by the comprehensive enquiry of the Tariff Board into the Woollen Industry. The full report of the Tariff Board has not yet been receive but it is known that the duties under item 554b to 27½ per cent. ad val. 17 cts. Per lb with a maximum of 65 cts. per lb. and the deletion of item 554e. These recommendations were included in the recent Budget proposals


551a
Yarns and warps, composed wholly of wool or in part of wool or hair imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in their own factories, n.o.p.
10percent,ad val. Plus 7½ cts. per lb.



553
Blankets of any material, not to include automobile rugs, steamer rugs, or similar articles.
22½ per cent ad. val. plus 10 cts. per lb



554
Woven fabrics, composed wholly or in chief part by weight of yarns of wool or hair not exceeding in weight six ounces to the square yard, n.o.p. when imported in the grey or unfinished condition for the purpose of being dyed or finished in Canada.
20 per cent, ad val. Plus 9¼ cts. per lb.



554b
Woven fabries composed wholly or in part of yarns of wool or hair, n.o.p.
27½ per cent. ad. val. plus 18¾ cts. per lb.



554e
Woven fabrics,composed wholly or in part of yarns of wool or hair, weighing not less than eighteen ounces per square yard.
25 per cent, ad val. plus 20 cts. per lb.



555
Clothing, wearing apparel and articles made from woven fabrics, and all textile manufactures, wholly or partially manufactured, composed wholly or in part of wool or similar animal fibres, but of which the component of chief value is not silk nor artificial silk, n.o.p. fabrics, coated or impregnated, composed wholly or in part of yarns of wool or hair but not containing silk nor artificial silk, n.o.p.
30 per cent, ad val. plus 18¾ cts. per lb.



ex 537
Rovings, yarns and warps, wholly of jute, not more advanced than singles.
12½ per cent. ad val.
Free entry accorded.


ex 537a
Rovings, yarns and warps, wholly of jute, including yarn twist, cords and twines, generally used for packing and other purpose.
20 per cent, ad val. 
Duty 'increased to 27½ per cent. ad val.


ex 548
Canvas of flax or hemp, coated or impregnated
25 per cent, ad val. plus 3cts. per lb.
Duty reduced to 15 per cent. ad val.


611a
Boots, shoes, slippers and insoles of any material, n.o.p.
25 per cent ad val.
No reduction recommended


ex506
Wooden doors
17½ per cent. ad val.
Free entry accorded to wooden doors of a height and width not less than 6 ft. and 2 ft. respectively


*When the duty exceeds 15 per cent, ad valorem or in the case of a specific duty or a specific and ad valorem duty combined, in which the computed rate exceeds 15 percent, ad valorem, the British Preferential duty is subject to a discount of 10 per cent, of the duty

is in tabular form, I will, with my hon. and learned Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

FURNITURE (IMPORT DUTY).

Lieut.-Colonel TODD. (for Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS): 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any recommendation has been received from the Import Duties Advisory Committee as to the rate of duty upon imported wooden furniture; and, if so, when the recommendation will be published?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on the 22nd May, 1933, to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire South (Mr. Emrys-Evans), of which. I am sending him a copy.

HIS MAJESTY'S SILVER JUBILEE (CELEBRATIONS).

Mr. NOEL LINDSAY: 10.
asked The Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will take steps to associate the veterans of the South African War in the forthcoming Jubilee celebrations; and whether any special financial assistance will be accorded to this class of ex-service men?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): Special arrangements can be made only for those ex-service men who are members of one of the associations. A number of veterans of the South African War will, of course, be included among the representatives of ex-service men's associations and the in-pensioners of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, for whom places will be found along the route of the Royal Procession on 6th May. As regards the last part of the question, no special financial assistance is being accorded to any ex-service men.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the position of the nurses, including the overseas nurses?

Mr. HACKING: That does not arise Out of this question. I would rather that another question be put down.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether facilties will be offered to Members of Parliament for participating in any Silver Jubilee functions other than witnessing the procession from the stand in the Mall; and, if so, whether he will state their nature?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): There is no function in which the House of Commons will participate as a body except the ceremony in Westminster Hall on 9th May, but a number of hon. Members as indivduals will no doubt receive invitations with their wives to other functions mentioned in the published programme. Special facilities will be offered to Members in connection with the Naval, Military and Air Force Reviews.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

EDUCATIONAL CORPS (PROMOTION).

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 11.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has yet received the recommendations of the committee appointed to examine the promotion situation in the Army Educational Corps?

Mr. HACKING: No, Sir. The report of this committee has not yet been submitted to the Army Council.

Mr. LEWIS: Has my hon. Friend any idea when this report is likely to be available?

Mr. HACKING: If my hon. Friend will put down a question after Easter, I may be able to give him a reply.

TERRITORIAL FORCE (CIVILIAN PENSIONS).

Earl WINTERTON: 12.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that a territorial soldier has no security against the loss of civil pension rights on mobilisation, whether he be in the service of a civil department of the Crown or of a local authority; and if steps will be taken to remedy this matter on the lines of the Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916?

Mr. HACKING: I am aware of the position. As regards civil servants no legislation would be necessary, and in point of fact in the late War military service was allowed to count towards civil pension. As regards the pensionable employés of local authorities legislation would be required.

Earl WINTERTON: Will my right hon. Friend have regard to the fact that potential recruits in these classes are not joining the Territorials for fear of what
their position might be on mobilisation, and will he give further consideration to the matter?

Mr. HACKING: I cannot disguise the fact that I have every sympathy with my Noble Friend in his desire, but this question does not rest with the War Office alone. I am led to believe that any legislation with regard to local authorities would probably have to be introduced by the Ministry of Health and not by my Department. With regard to legislation, perhaps my Noble Friend would address a question to the Leader of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

MILK MARKETING SCHEME.

Duchess of ATHOLL: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can now intimate the decision of the investigating committee in regard to the complaint made by the Association of Certified and Grade A (T.T.) Milk Producers in regard to the Scottish Milk Marketing Scheme?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Jamieson): The findings of the committee were announced in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and Haddington (Captain McEwen) on 20th February, of which a copy is being sent to the Noble Lady. An order will now be made to give effect to the proposal that the contribution payable in respect of certified milk sold as such, should be at the rate of one half-penny a gallon, with retrospective effect as from 1st May, 1934.

TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION.

Mr. BURNETT: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the memorial of the Retired Teachers' Association of Scotland with regard to the superannuation allowances for pre-1919 retired teachers; and whether he proposes to take action with a view to fixing these superannuation allowances on the basis of salary and years of service, in order to bring them into conformity with present-day practice?

The LORD ADVOCATE: The memorial referred to restates certain claims which have been very carefully
considered both by my right hon. Friend and by his predecessor in office in 1930. On 25th January last a deputation from the association placed their views on the subject before the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who informed them that, after the fullest consideration, no hope of any addition to the concessions granted to the teachers in question in 1919 and 1925 could be held out. My right hon. Friend regrets that he can find no ground for reopening this matter.

Mr. BURNETT: In view of the fact that the numbers are so small and that the teachers in question are so very old and infirm, could the hon. and learned Gentleman not see his way to make some
concession?

The LORD ADVOCATE: The matter is really too complicated for discussion by way of question and answer. If my hon. Friend wishes, my right hon. Friend will send him an explanatory statement.

Mr. MAXTON: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the only complication in the matter is the expenditure by the Scottish Office of£1,000 or so?

Dr. MORRISON: In view of the small salaries that these people enjoyed during their teaching life, of their small number, and of their advanced age— they must be at least 81—will not my hon. and learned Friend be willing to reconsider this question?

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman impress on the Government that if they can give £20,000 a day to the beet-sugar industry they might give an extra £1,000 a year to these teachers?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

AMALGAMATIONS (DISPLACED WORKERS).

Mr. TINKER: 16.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether, when colliery amalgamations take place and persons are put out of employment through it, there is any scheme in operation among colliery companies to pay compensation to such displaced workers according to length of service?

Mr. E. BROWN: I am not aware of any such scheme.

Mr. TINKER: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries through his Department as there are many people being put out of work through amalgamations? I understand that some sections are compensated, and the information would be of interest.

Mr. BROWN: I know of one or two cases where there are arrangements made by firms. The question is about schemes, and I do not know about them. On the other hand if the hon. Member asks about compulsory amalgamations under the Act, that is not my responsibility, and the case of the persons affected should be put before the tribunal when the schemes are being considered.

Mr. MARTIN: When the Socialist party brought in the second part of the Act of 1930, did they have this in view?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member cannot expect me to answer that question.

STATISTICS.

Miss WARD: 18.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can give figures of the export of coal from this country to the Argentine in 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934?

Mr. E. BROWN: The quantity of coal exported from this country to the Argentine in 1931 was 2,091,218 tons; in 1932, 1,846,464 tons; in 1933, 1,852,122 tons and in 1934, 1,937,066 tons.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: 17.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of colliery companies operating in Great Britain; the number of directors appointed by such companies; and the total salaries paid to colliery directors in 1931 and in 1931, giving separate figures for Lancashire and Cheshire?

Mr. BROWN: The number of separate owners of coal mines in Great Britain was 1,156 in 1931 and 1,142 in 1934. The corresponding figures for Lancashire and Cheshire were 97 and 87 respectively. I regret that the only information available as to the other part, of the question is that contained in the report of the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry (1925) where it is stated, with reference to fees, that "their amount is negligible—less than ½per ton."

Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. DAGGAR): 22.
asked the Secretary for Mines the total quantity and percentage of coal cut by
machinery in South Wales and Monmouthshire in 1913, and for each year from 1920 to 1934, inclusive?

Mr. BROWN: As the reply involves a statistical table, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Quantity and Percentage of Coal cut by Machinery in South Wales and Monmouthshire.


Year.
Quantity of coal cut by machinery.
Percentage of Total Output.





Tons.



1913
…
…
639,719
1


1920
…
…
1,076,530
2


1921*
…
…
852,620
3


1922
…
…
1,818,172
4


1923
…
…
2,217,108
4


1924
…
…
2,619,948
5


1925
…
…
2,566,966
6


1926*
…
…
1,518,227
7


1927
…
…
3,212,184
7


1928
…
…
3,318,122
8


1929
…
…
4,178,341
9


1930
…
…
4,328,714
10


1931
…
…
4,355,741
12


1932
…
…
4,092,932
12


1933
…
…
4,402,169
13


1934
…
…
5,235,056
15


*In these years, work at coal mines was reduced by protracted disputes.

Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. DAGGAR): 23.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of coal-cutting machines and conveyors in use in the coal mines of Great Britain for the year 1934?

Mr. BROWN: During the year 1934, 7,406 coal-cutting machines and 5,369 conveyors were in use at mines under the Coal Mines Act in Great Britain.

Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. DAGGAR): 24.
asked the Secretary for Mines the quantity of coal consumed in Great Britain during the years 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934?

Mr. BROWN: The quantity of coal available for consumption in Great Britain in the year 1930 was 166,580,000 tons, in 1931 155,680,000 tons, in 1932 149,500,000 tons, in 1933 148,370,000 tons, and in 1934 161,470,000 tons.

Mr. THORNE: Has the hon. Gentleman any separate figures of the amount of coal consumed by gas companies and electric generating stations?

Mr. BROWN: I should require notice of that question, and I am not sure that I could give the information in that form.

MAN-RIDING HAULAGE.

Mr. TINKER: 19.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of collieries where man-riding haulages are in operation; and whether he will also consider having this question investigated so that man-riding haulages shall be put in use at all collieries when the distance from the shaft bottom to the coal face reaches a certain point?

Mr. E. BROWN: I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. The answer to the second part is that distance is by no means the only consideration, and that it depends on the circumstances of the particular case whether it is reasonably practicable to make safe provision for riding men.

Mr. TINKER: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that when there are long distances to travel underground man-riding haulage is a great help to the workmen?

Mr. BROWN: I will bear that point in mind.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Does the hon. Gentleman also know that, while these men are walking three miles underground to get to the coal face, they are not earning a penny piece?

OVERWINDING (PREVENTION).

Mr. CONANT: 20.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has yet considered the report of the Committee on Over-winding Prevention; and what action he proposes to take?

Mr. TINKER: 21.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has considered the report of the Overwinding Prevention Committee; and can he say what action he proposes to take with regard to it?

Mr. E. BROWN: It is not quite a fortnight since the report was published, and a reasonable opportunity must be allowed for it to be studied by the parties concerned before I discuss with them what action shall be taken.

Mr. TINKER: Will the hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement when he presents his Estimates to the House?

Mr. BROWN: I am not sure about that. If the hon. Member is very much interested, I will let him know when I am in a position to make a statement.

YAMPI ISLANDS (IRON ORE DEPOSITS).

Sir BASIL PETO: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that rich iron ore deposits, reported to aggregate 98 million tons of 68 per cent. of iron ore above water level, are in a group of three small Australian islands in the Yampi Sound, north-west of Australia, and have been leased by the Australian Government to a Japanese syndicate, the ore to be worked by Australian labour and shipped to Japan; and whether the imperial aspects of this development were discussed by the Dominions Office before the concession was granted?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: My information is that no lease of the islands referred to, or of any iron ore deposits which exist there, has been granted to Japanese interests. The latter part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

POST OFFICE CONTRACTS (FAIR WAGES CLAUSE).

Mr. MANDER: 28.
asked the Postmaster-General whether it is the practice of the Post Office, as a model employer in industries where a joint industrial council exists, to recognise the rates of wages fixed in connection with the fair wages clause of the House of Commons, and the reasons why this is not done in the case of the National Joint Industrial Council of the cooperage industry: and whether he is aware that Wolverhampton employers who pay the Joint Industrial Council rate of Is. 5d. per hour are losing business with the Post Office because of the competition of employers at Burslem, in the same county, who only pay Is. per hour?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): All contracts for the Post Office service include a clause embodying the Fair Wages Resolution of the House of Commons. In accordance with this clause where a rate of wages fixed by a National Joint Industrial Council is
commonly recognised by employers and trade societies in the trade in the district where the work is carried out the contractor is bound by the terms of his contract to pay such a rate. In the absence of such recognised wages in the district concerned the contractor is bound to pay not less than those which in practice prevail amongst good employers in that district. In regard to the cooperage industry, I have no reason to suppose on the evidence before me that there has been a breach of the Fair Wages Clause so far as contracts entered into by the Post Office are concerned. I am aware that a cooperage contract has been secured by an employer at Burslem, who pays lower rates than his competitors at Wolvèrhampton, but I have no infórmation as regards the extent to which the difference between the tendered prices was due to wage or other factors.

Mr. MANDER: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are a number of firms near Burslem in the Potteries who are paying the proper rate of 1s. 5d., and is it the view of the Post Office that a good employer is one who pays 5d. per hour less than the Joint Industrial Council rate?

Sir E. BENNETT: In adhering to the terms of the Fair Wages Resolution we have been following the precedents set by every Government since 1910, including the last Labour Government.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: If the hon. Gentleman finds on inquiry that any previous Government has made a mistake in this connection, will he, belonging to this Government, correct it?

Mr. MANDER: If I am able to prove to my lion. Friend that the facts are as stated, will he be good enough to reconsider the matter?

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.

Sir A. KNOX: 27.
asked the Postmaster-General by whom the general advisory council of the British Broadcasting Corporation was appointed, and what its functions will be?

Sir E. BENNETT: I understand that this advisory council has been appointed
by the British Broadcasting Corporation, in accordance with the provisions of Clause 9 of their Charter, to advise them on matters of policy.

Sir A. KNOX: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in this distinguished collection of bishops, schoolmasters and Socialists there is not a single person to cater for the wants of the ordinary man, who, after a hard day's work, wants some amusement and not instruction?

ROYAL AIR FORCE (AIR DAY).

Mr. EVERARD: 29.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether Air Force stations will be open to the public on Empire Air Day, Saturday, 25th May; and whether the Air Force will assist by demonstration flights

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I am glad to be able to say that the general interest shown in the Air Day held last year amply justifies my Noble Friend in making similar arrangements to throw open Royal Air Force stations to the public on 25th May this year. The details have not yet been finally settled, particularly as regards the flying to be carried out, but my hon. Friend may be assured that our intention is to enable as many visitors as possible to see the Royal Air Force at its daily work and to witness whatever flying can be included within the normal programme of training.

AVIATION (PILOTS' LICENCES).

Mr. EVERARD: 30.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the recommendation of the Gorell Committee on the subject of the medical requirements on the renewal of B-licences by captains of large air-liners has been put into effect?

Sir P. SASSOON: The Air Ministry is prepared to put this recommendation into effect in appropriate cases.

Mr. EVERARD: May I ask whether this is actually in effect now in any case which has cropped up?

Sir P. SASSOON: No, Sir, no case has arisen.

GREAT BRITAIN AND GERMANY (AIR STRENGTH).

Earl WINTERTON: 31.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the relative strength of the British and German Air Forces in first-line aircraft has altered since the last official figures were
given?

Sir P.SASSOON: If all relevant factors are taken into account, we believe that the Royal Air Force has still a margin of superiority over the German Air Force. Nevertheless, the rate of Germany's air development is such as to cause His Majesty's Government grave concern, and the situation will need close and continuous watchfulness in order that any necessary alterations may be made in our own programme, should circumstances so demand.

Earl WINTERTON: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the serious anxiety which is felt by many of us over the complete discrepancy between the official figures given recently and those given by Herr Hitler to the Foreign Secretary, he will be able to produce figures in time for the Debate which my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and I have asked for, and which we have reason to believe will take place soon after Easter, so that we may know what the position is?

Sir P.SASSOON: My Noble Friend knows that it is very difficult to get accurate and precise figures. Herr Hitler has claimed parity with the Royal Air Force in numbers, but, as I said in my Estimates' speech, first-line strength is only one of the factors that have to be taken into account in assessing the real military value of an Air Force.

Commander BOWER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the source of the inaccurate information which His Majesty's Government have? Have we not an Air Attaché in Berlin who is charged with the duty of providing this sort of information?

Sir P. SASSOON: He gives us all the information he can.

Earl WINTERTON: 32.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what is the present monthly production of new first-line aeroplanes for the air forces of
this country and of Germany, respectively?

Sir P. SASSOON: The German Government have not, so far as I am aware, made public any figures of their current production of aircraft, nor, to date, has it been the practice of any Continental nation to do so. Unless and until such figures are disclosed by other countries, my noble Friend is of the opinion that it would be contrary to the public interest to disclose our own figures. I am, therefore, unable to add to the broad statement which I made in introducing Air. Estimates, namely, that we shall be ordering over 1,000 machines of all types in the course of the current financial year.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.

Mr. EVERARD: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any decision has yet been reached on the question of unemployment insurance for agricultural workers?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Oliver Stanley): No, Sir.

Mr. T. SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Bill will be brought in this Session, and does he appreciate the position of the agricultural workers who are out of employment and now have to go to the Public Assistance Authority?

Mr. STANLEY: I quite realise the position.

HOSIERY TRADE.

Mr. LYONS: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour the average weekly wage, in terms of British currency, now paid to male hosiery and artificial silk workers in Japan; the amount of maintenance and other deductions there from; and the comparable wages paid in this country?

Mr. STANLEY: As the reply is somewhat long, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. LYONS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the very great difference between the standards of the workers, male and female, in Japan and their standards in this country, and to the
relation which that must bear to the increasing unemployment in the hosiery trade in this country, and will he take that situation into account?

Following is the reply:

According to statistics issued by the Japanese Ministry of Commerce and Industry the average daily earnings of male hosiery workers in Japan at September, 1934, were 1.58 yen and those of male artificial silk yarn spinners were 1.38 yen (equivalent to about Is. 10d. and 1s.7½d respectively, at the present rate of exchange). Similar particulars are not available for other classes of artificial silk workers. These amounts are said to include food allowances, bonuses for quality and output, overtime and night work, but not seasonal payments, payments during unemployment or sickness, retiring or discharge allowances, clothing and lodging allowances, etc. I am not in possession of information as to the average weekly earnings. For Great Britain, the latest official inquiry into wages in these industries relates to one week in October, 1931, when the actual earnings of all classes of male workers, skilled and unskilled, in the establishments as to which information was obtained, averaged 60s. in the silk and artificial silk industry and. 58s. 4d. in the hosiery industry. These averages were affected by short-time working, and other forms of underemployment, at some of the factories covered by the returns. I am informed on behalf of the National Federation of Hosiery Manufacturers' Associations that the average earnings of male workers of average skill at the present time are not less than £4 per week of 48 hours.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.

Mr. BATEY: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give a list of questions which must be answered by an unemployed person applying for payment under the Unemployment Assistance
Board?

Mr. STANLEY: I have obtained from the Unemployment Assistance Board and am forwarding to The hon. Member a copy of the form on which applications for unemployment allowances are made.

Mr. TINKER: Could not the right hon. Gentleman hand a copy to every Member? We are all interested in this subject,
and what is useful to my hon. Friend will be useful to others.

Mr. STANLEY: I will certainly consider what I can do in order to make copies available.

Mr. McENTEE: Might I suggest that a copy of it might be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. STANLEY: I think it might be more convenient for lion. Members to have copies.

Mr. THORNE: May I suggest that it should be published in the "Labour Gazette"? Then it would be convenient for everybody.

ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY (FOREIGN ARTISTES).

Captain STRICKLAND: 36.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has given consideration to the suggestion of imposing a quota on the number of foreign artistes permitted to take stage engagements in this country proportionate to the number of British artistes engaged for performances abroad?

Mr. STANLEY: I do no think the method of fixing a quota is a practicable one. Permits are not issued unless the Department is satisfied in each case that they ought not to be refused.

Captain STRICKLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the amount of unemployment which exists in the British entertainment profession among artistes of at least equal merits?

Mr. STANLEY: That is one of the factors taken into consideration. I am afraid that the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member is not practicable.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Would they not do better if they adopted Italian names?

Captain STRICKLAND: May I ask whether any other country imposes a quota on permits granted to visiting artistes?

Mr. STANLEY: I could not answer that without notice.

ROYAL NAVY (OIL SUPPLIES).

Lieut.-Colonel TODD: 37.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the vulnerability of our existing
oil supplies, he will make it a matter of urgency that the oilfield in the Dead Sea region shall be developed without delay, under reliable British direction, to provide a reliable supply of fuel for the Navy?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): I do not altogether share the views of my hon. and gallant Friend regarding the vulnerability of our existing oil supplies, nor as to the urgency of developing this particular oilfield, if oil in quantity is found to exist. The Admiralty would, of course, welcome its development, but they consider that, from the Naval point of view, there is no need to take any special steps in this direction.

Lieut.-Colonel TODD: Is the First Lord of the Admiralty aware that the oil which has been discovered is considerably closer to the port than the existing supplies?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I am aware of that fact, but I also think that any further question on this point should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

NURSERY SCHOOLS.

Mr. SMEDLE CROOKE: 39.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what proportion of the nursery schools in the country are regarded as full-time schools and so eligible to receive milk at reduced rates?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): All the 61 nursery schools recognised for grant by the Board of Education are regarded as full-time schools and are eligible to participate in the scheme for the supply of milk at reduced rates. I have no information as to the number of unrecognised nursery schools, and am therefore unable to state the proportion of the grant-earning schools to the total number of schools which might be regarded as nursery schools.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it the policy of the Government to recognise well-conducted and well-established nursery schools?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: If a nursery school makes out its case, it can be recognised.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS, LANCASHIRE.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: 38.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the number of pupils attending the rate-aided secondary schools in Lancashire, including the county boroughs as well as the administrative county, and also the number of free places granted in such schools in 1931, 1934, and 1935?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: In the area in question the number of pupils in secondary schools which were in receipt of aid from the rates on the 1st October, 1930, 1933 and 1934 was 32,537, 36,070 and 37,030 respectively. The number of free places or special places carrying total remission of fees awarded at the beginning of the school years 1930–31, 1933–34 and 1934–35 was 3,886, 3,585 and 3,663. At the beginning of the last two years there were in addition 442 and 434 awards of special places carrying partial remission of fees.

BRITISH COUNCIL FOR RELATIONS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES(GRANT),

Mr. MANDER: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make with reference to the newly formed British Council for Relations with other Countries; what the scope of its activities will be and what grant from public funds it is proposed to make; whether the work already carried out on similar lines by the Institute of Intellectual Co-operation of the League of Nations will be borne in mind; and whether the new council will keep in contact with the National Committee of the League body now existing in this country?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): The British Council for Relations with Other Countries is being established to promote abroad a wider knowledge of the English language, of English literature, art, music, science, education, institutions and other aspects of our national life. It will endeavour to undertake this work on a wider scale than has been possible hitherto and will seek to encourage and co-ordinate the activities of existing societies. It is proposed to ask for
a grant of £6,000 from public funds for the financial year 1935–6. I understand that the council is already in contact with the National Committee of the Institute of Intellectual Co-operation of the League of Nations, and that in so far as the activities of these two bodies coincide, friendly collaboration will be maintained.

NATIONALITY LAW (MARRIED WOMEN).

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the fact that the Dominion of New Zealand has now enacted legislation securing to New Zealand women the right to retain their nationality on marriage to an alien will affect the previous decision of His Majesty's Government, based on the desirability of preserving the uniformity of the law of nationality throughout the British Commonwealth, not to proceed with legislation in the United Kingdom to accord to a married woman the same rights in respect of nationality as are possessed by a man or a single woman; and whether this question will be the subject of discussion during the forthcoming meetings with representatives of the Dominions?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The. effect of the New Zealand legislation referred to in the first part of the right hon. Member's question is to provide that, within New Zealand, a woman British subject married to an alien shall, upon making a prescribed declaration, be entitled to all political and other rights, powers and privileges and be subject to all obligations, duties and liabilities to which a natural-born British subject is entitled or subject. The legislation was, I understand, framed in this form in order not to conflict with the general policy of maintaining uniformity of nationality legislation within the Empire and does not therefore affect the decision of the Government here to which the right hon. Member refers. As regards the second part of the question, as explained in the reply given by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to the hon. Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) on 1st March last, the Government, as at present advised, do not feel that any useful purpose would be served by their raising with the Dominion repre-
sentatives the question of further legislation on the subject of the nationality of married women, on the lines suggested in the right hon. Member's question.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Are the Government prepared to consider the introduction of legislation going at least as far as that which has been passed in New Zealand?

The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is one thing to be the Government in New Zealand and another thing to be this Government in this place.

Viscountess ASTOR: Would the Government be prepared to put before the House of Commons the question of the nationality of British women and will they bear in mind that there are literally hundreds of thousands of alien women getting citizenship here whereas some of the very best Englishwomen get no rights at all because they are married to foreigners?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is surely a subject for a Debate, in which all sides and all interests will have to be considered.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that only one Dominion has passed such legislation?

AIR DEFENCE.

Mr. LAMBERT: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increasing air armaments on the Continent, he will appoint a commission, apart from the Committee of Imperial Defence, to investigate the vulnerability of the naval and military establishments in the south-eastern, and southern areas, and advise as to the necessity of their removal to situations less exposed to possible aerial attack?

The PRIME MINISTER: As I informed my right hon. Friend in answer to a question on 25th March, the whole question of the vulnerability of important establishments is under active consideration, and I do not, therefore, think that the suggested Commission would serve any useful purpose.

Mr. LAMBERT: May I press this matter upon the Government? Are the Government aware of the vital importance to the defence of this country of the
naval and military establishments being efficient, when Europe is swarming with aircraft?

The PRIME MINISTER: The whole question of the vulnerability of these places is under the active consideration of the Government.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman not give us any idea when a decision will be arrived at?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, but, if my right hon. Friend will put that specific question to me, I will try to answer it. He must be aware that the matter is not one which can be lightly decided. For one thing, these settlements have established around themselves a very important and beneficial social life, built up from all sorts of organisations, and it is not merely an arsenal or a dockyard which has to be moved but a whole social community.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is the welfare of these establishments to come before the defence of the country?

The PRIME MINISTER: No.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Mr. CHARLES TAYLOR: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the enforced closing down of a large number of theatres and of the numerous changes over to cinematograph entertainment from the living theatre and the consequent increase in unemployment in the musical and other professions, he will consider the abolition of, or a reduction in, the Entertainments Duty in so far as those entertainments are concerned in which the human element predominates?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

Mr. TAYLOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman give very favourable consideration to this deserving case as there are definite cases of unemployment which can be relieved?

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Further to that, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the very sympathetic references which he made to these men last
year have raised their expectations and their hopes?

Mr. THORNE: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many suggestions have been made to him in regard to the Budget?

UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).

Mr. T. SMITH: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount provided in each Budget up to 1934 for repayment of, and interest on, the American debt?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement containing the information asked for.

Following is the statement:

The following amounts were charged against Revenue for principal and/or interest on the debt to the United States Government in the years stated:

£


1917–18
…
…
…
3,418,000


1918–19
…
…
…
26,478,000


1919–20
…
…
…
19,298,000


1920–21
…
…
…
289,000


1921–22
…
…
…
24,123,000


1923–24
…
…
…
41,063,000


1924–5
…
…
…
36,416,000


1925–26
…
…
…
33,268,000


1926–27
…
…
…
33,089,000


1927–28
…
…
…
32,845,000


1928–29–
…
…
…
33,164,000


1929–30
…
…
…
32,998,000


1930–31
…
…
…
33,037,000


1931–32
…
…
…
13,555,000


1932–33
…
…
…
28,956,000


1933–34
…
…
…
3,304,000


1934–35
…
…
…
—

REVENUE COLLECTION (COST).

Mr. G. MACDONALD: 56.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total cost of collecting all inland revenues, also showing the percentage of cost to the gross amount collected, for the latest year for which figures are available?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): I would refer the hon. Member to Table 5 on page 9 of the recently published 77th Annual Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Command Paper No. 4739), where he will find the latest information as to the cost of Inland Revenue services and its relation to the gross revenue.

MANDATED TERRITORIES (BRITISH POLICY).

Mr. SANDYS: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in order to remove misapprehensions which at present exist in official quarters in Germany and which, if allowed to continue, must adversely affect Anglo-German relations, His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of intimating to the German Government that the transfer to Germany of any colonial mandate held by His Majesty's Government is a matter which they are not under any circumstances prepared to consider?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have no reason to suppose that the German Government is under any such misapprehension. The policy of His Majesty's Government has been repeatedly and clearly stated by this and previous Governments.

Mr. PETHERICK: Will His Majesty's Government make it very clear that it is neither impressed by, nor will it give in to, bluff?

AGRICULTURE (DEPRECIATED CURRENCIES).

Mr. LAMBERT: 10.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, as compared to sterling, are the depreciations in the currencies of Denmark, Argentina, Australia and New Zealand; and whether he proposes to take action, monetary or otherwise, to enable home agricultural producers to compete fairly with products from countries with depreciated currencies?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Over the last five years the depreciation of the Australian, New Zealand and Danish currencies relative to sterling has been from 19 to 20 per cent., and the depreciation of the Argentine currency rather less than 40 per cent. The Australian, New Zealand and Danish currencies have all been stable in terms of sterling for more than two years. The difficulties of agricultural producers in this country have arisen from many varying circumstances, and no stereotyped method of dealing with them could be adopted with advantage. Appropriate measures have been taken by His Majesty's Government for the relief of the different branches of agriculture as their individual circumstances required.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the competition from countries with these depreciated currencies is affecting prejudicially our agricultural producers here?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would remind my right hon. Friend that our own currency has depreciated since we went off gold.

Mr. LAMBERT: But are not these currencies depreciated in relation to sterling?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I said so.

CIVIL SERVANTS (SALARIES AND PENSIONS).

Mr. STOURTON: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of civil servants drawing salaries between £1,000 and £1,500 a year, £1,500 and £2,000 a year, £2,000 and £2,500 a year, and £2,500 and £3,000 a, year; and the corresponding figures for 1913?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving the figures as at the 1st April, 1934, the latest date for which information is available. I regret that comparable figures for the year 1913 are not available.

Following is the table:

NUMBER of Civil Servants in receipt of remuneration within the ranges indicated, as at 1st April, 1934.


£1,000 per annum but less than£1,500 per annum
1,795


£1,500 per annum but less than£2,000 per annum
309


£2,000 per annum but less than£2,500 per annum 
30


£2,500 per annum but less than£3,000 per annum
22

Mr. SANDYS: 57.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his Department will give favourable consideration to the question of making the consolidation of bonus and salary at 55 retrospective in the case of all those pensioners who retired prior to 1st July, 1931, and who only received 75 per cent. of the bonus in the assessment of their retiring gratuities?

Mr. COOPER: The pensions in question, namely, those awarded under the
Treasury Minute of 20th March, 1922, to civil servants who were in receipt of cost-of-living bonus and who retired before 1st September, 1931, have already been re-assessed as from 1st July, 1934, at a rate appropriate to a cost-of-living figure of 55. The additional lump sum gratuities awarded to these pensioners are in a different category. They consisted, in the case of each pensioner, of a single non-recurring payment at the date of retirement, and were awarded and paid on a non-reviewable basis. The 1922 Minute, the terms of which were agreed with the staff side of the National Whitley Council, specifically provided that 75 per cent. of the bonus should continue to be reckoned in calculating the award, and I am not prepared to re-open this question.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will my hon. Friend consider the vast mass of people who get neither retiring gratuities nor pensions?

NEW SCIENCE MUSEUM

Lieut. - Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSON: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the request from the Royal Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851 that they may be released from their undertaking to contribute to the cost of the new science museum; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Royal Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851, being empowered under their Supplemental Charter to utilise the surplus funds arising from the Exhibition to promote the knowledge of science and art and their application in productive industry, offered in 1876 to contribute towards the cost of building a science museum on the Commissioners' estate in South Kensington. This offer was not accepted by the Government until 1910, and, owing to the intervention of the War period, the first section of the museum, to the cost of which the Commissioners have duly contributed their share, has only just been completed. During the interval the Commissioners began to use their income for the provision of scholarships and bursaries which extended to the Dominions as well as to this country,
and the development of their schemes in this connection has proved to be of quite exceptional importance and value. They have now represented to His Majesty's Government that any curtailment of this educational programme would be extremely unfortunate, and that, indeed, its further extension to the limit of their existing resources would be fully justified. In this view I concur, and I have, therefore, decided that it would be in the public interest that the Commissioners should be relieved of their liability to contribute further to the cost of the museum.

PASSPORT CHARGES.

Mr. BURNETT: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, with a view to encouraging foreign travel, he will now reduce the charge for passports from 15s. to 7s. 6d.

Sir SIMON: I regret that in present circumstances it is not possible to contemplate the loss of revenue involved.

HOUSING.

Miss CAZALET: 59.
asked the Minister of Health the estimated number of people in this country who have been re-housed in new accommodation since the War by local authorities and by private enterprise, respectively

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): No exact information is available, but a conservative estimate of four persons to a house would suggest that 3,200,000 persons occupy new houses erected by local authorities and 6,800,000 occupy new houses erected by private enterprise since the War.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: 61.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the number of cases in which insured persons lose the entire amount of their contributions over a long period of years owing to the fact that shortly before attaining the age of 65 they start some small business of their own; and whether, when they cease to be insured
employés, their approved societies notify them that they can preserve their rights by continuing as voluntary contributors?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend is aware that every half-year a number of persons, after having been insured for a period of years as employed contributors, take up business on their own account, and, after a free period of insurance of about 21 months, can only retain their rights under the schemes of health insurance and contributory pensions by becoming voluntary contributors. Approved societies have been instructed to inform their members of the position, and my right hon. Friend has no reason to think that they fail to do so.

BRITISH GUIANA.

Mr. LUNN: 62 and 63.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether any representation has been made to him by the town council of Georgetown, British Guiana, on the hardship occasioned by the new ordinance requiring immediate proceedings against ratepayers whose rates are in arrears; and, if so, what form this representation has taken and what reply he has made;
(2) whether in view of the fact that the Government of British Guiana has admitted its obligation to refund to the town council of Georgetown the large sum overpaid in respect of interest on the sewerage scheme, but has spread the repayment over 35 years, he will give instructions for a reasonable period to be allowed for the funding of all arrears of town taxes and rates outstanding at date, say 25 years, or, alternatively, whether he will give instructions that the new ordinance for the collection of rates be held up until an inquiry has been held into questions at issue between the town council and the Colonial Government?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): On the 14th December, 1934, a telegram was addressed to me by the Georgetown Town Council, through the Acting Governor of British Guiana, requesting that the new legislation to which the hon. Member refers should be held up pending further investigation of the council's difficulties. I replied that, while I was prepared to consider any representations submitted by
the council through the Acting Governor, I saw no ground for deferring legislation designed to facilitate recovery by the Georgetown Council of rates and taxes properly due, and thus to assist them to meet their liabilities to the Colonial Government for their share of the costs of the Georgetown sewerage scheme under a re-allocation favourable to the town council approved by me in November, 1932. I have approved of the Colonial Government's considering any appropriate scheme which the town council may put forward having as its object the extension of the period of the Funding Loan which was raised by the town council to facilitate the payment of arrears.

Mr. LUNN: In view of the hardship entailed on these poor people, is it possible to show a little more leniency?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think that, if my lion. Friend will study this question, going back for about 15 years, he will find that the settlement made was one much more favourable to the ratepayers than that recommended by the committee of inquiry. I think they have had a pretty good deal.

BRITISH WEST INDIES (DISTURBANCE, ST. KITTS).

Mr. LUNN: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the industrial disturbance which took place in St. Kitts, British West Indies, at the end of January last, when, as a result of the defence force being called out and the use of arms, three persons were killed and 11 wounded; and whether he will advise that an inquiry be held into the cause of the disturbances?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware of the disturbances which took place, and of the resulting casualties. The Governor of the Leeward Islands has already been asked for a report on the causes underlying or contributing to the disturbances, and on its receipt the question whether any further inquiry is necessary will be considered.

Mr. LUNN: May we be informed of the decision?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: When I receive a full report from the Governor I will communicate with the hon. Gentleman.

NUNNERY OF WHITE LADIES, SHROPSHIRE.

Mr. MANDER: 65.
asked the First Commissioner of Works the present position with regard to the remains of the Nunnery of White Ladies in Shropshire; and whether it is proposed to bring it under the guardianship of the Office of Works, and to take steps for its preservation and restoration so far as may be practicable?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): These ruins are about to be scheduled under the Ancient Monuments Acts, but, at the present time, the restricted funds at my disposal preclude my Department from taking guardianship.

Mr. MANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all that has been done so far is to cut the ivy? In view of the romantic association of this place with the wanderings of Charles II, after the Battle of Worcester, will the right hon. Gentleman give it a high place on his list?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am fully aware of its interest and importance, but, in view of the requirements of the Estimates Committee of this House, until I have got through some of my existing commitments I cannot do any more.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COUNTRIES (MINISTERS' VISITS).

SIR JOHN SIMON'S STATEMENT.

Mr. LANSBURY: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, before proceeding to Stresa, he can make any statement on the recent visits to European capitals?

Sir J. SIMON: If my answer is rather longer than is usual, I hope that in the circumstances I may be excused. The House will appreciate that just as the visits paid by British Ministers to Berlin, Moscow, Warsaw and Prague arose out of the London Declaration issued on 3rd February after the Anglo-French meeting here, so these visits, which were for the purpose of providing material as to the views of other Governments, are connected with the meeting at Stresa between His Majesty's Government, the French Government and the Italian Government which is to begin next Thursday
In these circumstances, I can to-day only make a summarised statement of what we have ascertained as to the views of other States, and it would not be possible to use the present occasion for a pronouncement of Government policy.
As regards the so-called Eastern Pact which was first suggested by the late M. Barthou last summer and which was the subject of a debate in the House of Commons on 13th July, Herr Hitler made it plain that Germany was not prepared to sign an Eastern Pact under which Germany would be bound to mutual assistance. In particular, Germany is not prepared to enter into a pact of mutual assistance between herself and Russia. On the other hand, Germany was stated to be in favour of a non-aggression pact between Powers interested in East European questions, together with provisions for consultation if aggression was threatened. Herr Hitler was not prepared in present conditions to contemplate the inclusion of Lithuania in any pact of non-aggression. The Germans also suggested that if, in spite of this pact of non-aggression and consultation, hostilities should break out between any two contracting Powers, the other contracting Powers should engage not to support the aggressor in any way. In another connection however Herr Hitler dwelt on the difficulty of identifying the aggressor. Asked as to his view if some of the other parties to such a pact entered into an agreement of mutual assistance as amongst themselves, Herr Hitler stated that he considered this idea was dangerous and objectionable as in his opinion it would tend to create especial interests in a group within the wider system.
In Moscow the Lord Privy Seal learned that the Soviet Government considered that the present international situation made it more than ever necessary to pursue the endeavour to promote the building up of a security system in Europe as contemplated in the London Communiqué and in conformity with the principles of the League. The Soviet Government emphasised that in its view the proposed Eastern Pact did not aim at the isolation or encirclement of any State but at the creation of equal security for all participants, and they felt that the participation of both Germany and Poland in the pact would afford the best solution of the problem.
In Warsaw, the Lord Privy Seal learned the view of the Polish Government on this question. M. Beck, the Polish Foreign Minister, explained that Poland had by her existing agreements with the Soviet Union on the one hand and with Germany on the other, established tranquil conditions upon her two frontiers, and the question Poland was bound to ask herself was whether any new proposals would improve or trouble the good atmosphere established by those two agreements.
What I have said will give the House some insight into the general attitude of the three Governments named towards the Eastern Pact, and the subject was also briefly reviewed in the short interview which the Lord Privy Seal had with M. Benes at Prague.
As regards the idea of a Central European Pact which was more particularly a topic of the Franco-Italian meeting at Rome, we understood in Berlin that the German Government did not reject the idea of such an arrangement. on grounds of principle, but did not see its necessity and saw great difficulty in defining "non-interference" in relation to Austria. Herr Hitler intimated, however, that if the other Governments who should wish to conclude a Central European Pact, could agree upon a text, the German Government would consider it. In Warsaw M. Beck told my right hon. Friend that Poland was prepared to adopt a friendly attitude to a Central European Pact and considered that the proposed arrangement might lead to appeasement and to the growth of confidence in that region. M. Benes, in Prague, expressed the hope that further progress might be made on this subject at Stresa.
In regard to land armaments, Herr Hitler stated that Germany required 36 divisions, representing a maximum of 550,000 soldiers of all arms, including a division of the S.S. and militarised police troops. He asserted that there were no para-military formations in Germany. Germany, he said, claimed to possess all types of arms possessed by other countries and was not prepared to refrain from constructing certain types until other countries ceased to possess them. If other countries would abandon certain types, Germany, he said, would do the same. As regards naval armaments,
Germany claimed with certain reserves 35 per cent. of British tonnage, and in the air parity between Great Britain, France and Germany, provided that the development of the Soviet Air Force was not such that revision of these figures would become necessary. If any general agreement as to arms limitation could be reached, Germany would be prepared to accept and work a system of permanent and automatic supervision, on the understanding that such supervision applied to all Powers equally. Herr Hitler said that the German Government favoured the suggestion contained in the London Communique of an air pact between the Locarno Powers.
On the subject of the League of Nations Herr Hitler referred to the assertion he had made in May, 1933, that Germany would not continue to participate in the League of Nations if she was to remain what he described as a country of inferior right and alleged, by way of example, that she was in a position of inferiority if she had no colonies.
I have confined myself to an account of what was said by others, but it must not be supposed that British Ministers did not indicate strong disagreement on certain points, and indeed at the end of the Berlin interviews I expressed our disappointment at the difficulties disclosed in the way of agreement.
There were of course other observations on the different topics, but I have endeavoured to communicate to the House with complete fairness and candour the salient matters ascertained in this series of visits. It will be understood that my statement is purely objective, and in view of the fact that comments of leading newspapers in this country are sometimes supposed on the Continent to represent Government opinion, it is desirable to state that His Majesty's Government, faithful to their assurance that they would take part at Stresa without previously reaching defined conclusions, have not yet formulated their attitude to these interviews and I trust that opinion abroad will await the official utterance of the Government before drawing inferences from any unauthorised comments and pronouncements.

Mr. LANSBURY: I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that he does not propose, and the Government do not
desire, that we should press for a statement of the Government's own attitude towards the questions raised. I should like to know whether that is correct or not.

The PRIME MINISTER: indicated assent.

Mr. LANSBURY: That being the case, I should like to say, on behalf of my hon. Friends, and I think on behalf of a considerable body of opinion in the country, that it is a great pity we could not have had a statement, at least with reference to Herr Hitler's declarations, before to-day, so that we might have had time to consider them, and also because the British Press and the Foreign Press have been full of categorical statements of what the Foreign Secretary said during the discussions and what was said by other people. I should like, on behalf of my hon. Friends, to say that we hope that at the very earliest moment possible after the Stresa conversations an official statement, as full as possible, will be given to the House on what has taken place. I am asked also to say this, and I think I am expressing the view of a very considerable body of opinion outside, that we hope the Government are going to carry out the policy, or are going to stand by the policy, at Stresa of collective security through the League of Nations, based, not on the piling up of bayonets, or poison gas or armaments, but on disarmament. That is all that I desire to say at the moment.

Sir H. SAMUEL: May I ask the Foreign Secretary whether in regard to the Stresa conversations we may assume, as in the case of previous conversations, that no definite commitment will be entered into on behalf of this country without previous discussion in Parliament?

Sir J. SIMON: As regards the last question that assurance can be given at once. My right hon. Friend will recollect that I have been asked a similar question before, and I have already stated that our freedom of action will not be prejudiced in any way by what passes at Stresa. After Stresa there will be a meeting at Geneva. In regard to the observations made by the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps I may remind him that the question which he put to me
to-day was originally put on Thursday, desire, that we should press for a state when I could only answer that it was impossible to give information as to what had passed in Moscow or Warsaw—

Mr. LANSBURY: No. In regard to Germany.

Sir J. SIMON: The question which was put to me on Thursday was whether I could make a statement on what had passed in Berlin, Moscow and Warsaw. I replied that I could not make any statement as the Lord Privy Seal had not reached this country. We are all sorry that he returned to this country in such a bad shape. I think the House will agree that I have made a fair statement in the circumstances.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In view of the fact that after the meeting at Stresa, there will be a meeting of the League of Nations, I should like to know whether His Majesty's Government contemplate that there will be a further statement made to this House after Stresa and before the meeting of the Council of the League, and whether there will be any opportunity for this House to discuss the appropriate attitude of this country before the meeting of the Council at Geneva.

Sir J. SIMON: The actual dates as at present arranged are these. My right hon. Friend will recollect that it was the French Government that asked some time ago for an immediate meeting of the Council following Stresa. Following upon that application, the President of the Council fixed next Monday, which follows so soon that I am afraid the discussions at Stresa are likely to run very close to that date. I do not myself anticipate that at the Council of the League matters will reach a final stage at all. I am afraid that the meeting of the Council is fixed to follow immediately after the meeting at Stresa.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the Prime Minister, if it be impossible to have a full statement in this House from His Majesty's Government and a discussion before Easter, whether he will arrange that such a statement shall be made and occasion for discussion provided as early as possible after our resumption of business after the Easter holidays?

The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend will remember that I have already answered a question to that effect. I am sorry that before Easter, on account of the Budget, it is impossible to have a Debate, but I can assure him that I am very anxious that no delay should take place and that I do contemplate giving the House an opportunity as soon after the resumption as we possibly can arrange it.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: While thanking the Prime Minister for his reply, may I say that my only object is that the Government should know in these critical times that they speak with the authority of the House of Commons?

Mr. MAXTON: Am I to understand from the last answer of the Foreign Secretary that the two representatives of this country, when they leave to-morrow for Stresa, will go from Stresa to Geneva and will enter into discussions and make commitments in the name of this House without this House having the faintest indication—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that before any final commitments the matter would be made a subject for discussion in this House. I originally understood that the two representatives were going to Stresa, and I have only just now learned that they are going from Stresa to Geneva. I am not asking that we should know their final conclusions, but I think it is wrong that this House should be asked to send two of its most important delegates abroad without having the faintest idea of the general line they are going to pursue. I for one, as a Member of this House, enter my dissent that an opportunity has not been given for a full discussion of this trip to the Continent and what is to be said on behalf of Great Britain. I have heard where Germany stands and where Russia stands, and where Warsaw stands, but I do not know where my own country stands.

Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Member may be completely assured that nobody contemplates that commitments will be entered into at the meeting at Geneva next Monday. It is surely right that there should be a meeting of the Council of the League, and I have no reason to suppose that any single representative sitting at the Council will be in a position to make commitments on behalf of
his country then and there. I hope the House will approve of the view that we should take our place at the Council of the League at Geneva.

Mr. MANDER: May I ask whether there is any reason why a debate on foreign affairs should not take
place?

Captain McEWEN: Can the Foreign Secretary say whether this meeting at Stresa is going to he of a, merely exploratory character?

Captain STRICKLAND: May I ask whether it is possible for the Foreign Secretary to explain to the House any reason given by Germany for the exclusion of Lithuania?

Sir J. SIMON: I do not think there is any objection to answering that question. The reason given, as I have stated in my original answer, which was confined to the present circumstances, was because of the difficulties which have arisen in connection with Memel.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask whether there is any possibility of the right hon. Gentleman or whoever goes to Geneva being back in time to have a discussion on the Motion for the Easter Adjournment on Thursday of next week?

Sir J. SIMON: It is not for me to apportion the time of the House. I have made inquiries as to the probable length of the meeting at Geneva. If it was confined to this subject, important as it is, I think it would be likely that I should be back, but I think that notice has now been given by the Abyssinian Government that they wish to raise questions between themselves and Italy at a special meeting of the Council of the League.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it possible for us to know what is happening at Geneva? Would it be possible for an official statement to be made on Thursday without debate, or on any other occasion?

Mr. BERNAYS: May I ask whether the Foreign Secretary gathered from Herr Hitler that there is no chance of Germany returning to the League of Nations in the present circumstances?

Sir J. SIMON: That is apparent from my original statement.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask whether the question of Memel is on the agenda for discussion at the League and
whether His Majesty's Government have considered whether they themselves should not place that question on the agenda. It may be too late now.

Sir J. SIMON: His Majesty's Government have not waited until now. We have taken up this matter and pressed it on several occasions, and on the last occasion, on the 30th of last month, we communicated with the French and Italian Governments on the subject. I am sorry to say that up to the present we have not got a clear indication of what the views of these Governments may be, but I certainly expect at the meeting at Geneva to learn more closely their views. The three Governments have especial interest in the Memel question.

Sir EDWARD GRIGG: May I ask for an assurance that, while our representatives at Stresa and Geneva will enter into no fresh commitments on behalf of this country without consulting this House, they will, nevertheless, make it perfectly clear that we stand by our existing commitments?

Mr. MANDER: If it is not possible for the Government to state what their policy is before they go, may I ask for an assurance that on this occasion they really have got a policy?

Oral Answers to Questions — BILLS REPORTED.

SUPERANNUATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 54.]

BURNLEY EXTENSION BILL.

Reported [Preamble not proved];Report to lie upon the Table.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Metropolitan Police (Borrowing Powers) Bill,

Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, without Amendment.

CRIMINAL LUNATICS (SCOTLAND)BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

Considered in Committee [NINETEENTH DAY— Progress, 8th, April. ]

[Sir DEICNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 264.—(Advisers to Secretary of State.)

3.59 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: Before I call on the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), the Committee might like to be reminded exactly where we stand in regard to the provisional time-table agreed upon by the committee of representatives of the various groups in the House. To-day is the nineteenth day and, according to the time-table, without taking into account the extra four days, we ought to finish the Clauses of the Bill to-night. Obviously, we shall not do that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Hon. Members will have to help. What I want to call the attention of the Committee to is that, whatever time is occupied after to-day on the Clauses of the Bill, will come out of the extra four days. The Committee know that as much as possible of these extra four days will be required for the new Clauses and the Schedules.
I should hope, personally, that we might find it possible to save at least two out of the four days for the new Clauses and schedules. We ought to do that, if possible. The Committee will realise that as we have only sat after 11 o'clock on two occasions, and then for less than half an hour. and I know the Committee do not wish to sit late. The remaining Clauses, for the most part do not raise any very big questions of principle, though there are a very considerable number of Amendments down, but I hope, with the good will that has been shown in the past, we may make considerable progress so as to save at least two of the four days for the new Clauses and the schedules. In that case I would suggest that we might, at any rate, get to the end of Part XIII, that is, to Clause 297 to-day.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: In your statement, Sir Dennis, you did not mean that in
the existing time-table no time was allotted to the Schedules and new Clauses? There is already a provision for the Schedules and new Clauses in the existing time-table, and, in addition, there are the four days in so far as they are not encroached upon by prolonged discussion of the Clauses.

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): It will be remembered that there has been a unanimous opinion expressed that there are many important issues in the new Clauses, and there will have to be time for their discussion.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I only because the statement as made from the Chair rather left the impression that there was no time allotted in the time-table for the new Clauses and Schedules.

4.3 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. I am sorry if was not quite clear in what I said. According to the original time-table, there were seven days allotted for the new Clauses and Schedules, but later on the Committee thought that more than seven days would be wanted for the new Clauses and Schedules, and, in view of the fact that very important questions would arise on the new Clauses, my object has been to try to work the time-table so as to give as much time as possible to the new Clauses and Schedules. As I said, the time the original time-table allotted to them seven days, and if we occupied two of the extra four clays in finishing the Clauses, that would mean that we would have only two of those days for the new Clauses and Schedules—in other words nine days altogether.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I am wondering whether you can give me any indication as to whether the Committee will have an opportunity of some broad discussion on Burma at the commencement of the chapter, in view of the fact that it has been quite impossible up to now to introduce Burma into the general issue of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will remember that a promise was given from the Chair when we passed a Clause providing that Burma should
not be part of India that if the Committee postponed discussing the question of the separation of Burma, an opportunity would be given for doing so when, we came to Part XIV, which deals with Burma, as it seemed to me a more convenient time to do it. I have thought over that, and I am proposing to suggest to the Committee that such discussion should take place on the first of the Clauses of Part XIV. It would be a formality to take that Debate on the Question that that Clause stand part. I take it I may assume that if the Committee negatived that Clause, the Government would take it as an indication that the Committee was against the separation of Burma, or, to put it, another way, that they would take it as an indication that whatever course the Committee adopted with regard to the first of those Clauses, it would follow the same course as regards all the rest of the Clauses in that part of the Bill. Therefore, I think that the Debate can well be taken on the Question of the first Burma Clause standing part.

Sir H. CROFT: I am grateful for your guidance, Sir Dennis, but may I respectfully suggest that it might be more convenient that the Debate should take place on a Motion to leave Part XIV out of the Bill?

The CHAIRMAN: I have considered that, but I think it is not in accordance with practice, and would not be carrying out the order of the House referring the Bill to the Committee.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Are we correct in thinking that on the Question that the first Clause in Part XIV stand part, we should be able to discuss the general issue arising out of the separation of
Burma?

The CHAIRMAN: Using the hon Member's exact words—"the general issue arising out of the separation of Burma"—I think the answer is, yes.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 150, line 23, to leave out "either," and to insert "the Commons."
To resume what I was saying at the moment when the clock last evening led you, Sir Dennis, to say, "Order, order."
The Amendment, it will be remembered, is one which proposes to substitute for either House of Parliament, the Commons House of Parliament, on the ground that though we frequently make it impossible for Members of this House to serve on various bodies, we have never in the past, with the solitary exception, I believe, of certain Indian legislation, imposed a disability on members of another place. For example, in connection with the London Passenger Transport Bill, we imposed a disability on Members of the Commons House of Parliament being on the board, but we did not impose that disability on members of another place, because if we had done so we should have excluded from service the very able chairman of that board, Lord Ashfield. I mentioned last night the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, as I thought, and his immediate predecessor. Then, again, I can remember three First Sea Lords—Lord Fisher, Lord Jellicoe and Lord Beatty. I think all of them held the office of First Sea Lord at times when they were members of another place.
Furthermore, it might well arise that a very competent person who is made one of these advisers might be the heir of a peer who might die, and the services of that man would be lost. I really see no reason for extending this disqualification beyond the Commons House of Parliament where there are obvious reasons for it. We withdraw finance from the other place, we ultimately dominate policy and we are essentially here in a controversial capacity. We get here by controversial means, and most of our life here is spent controversially; whereas in another place the element of controversy does not enter in the same degree and to the same extent. I know that the exact words of the Clause do not disable a peer, or possibly do not disable him, from being appointed, but if a peer were appointed, he would not be capable of sitting or voting in the House of Lords. It would be a great constitutional challenge that because a peer was appointed to some particular office, he was then disabled from actually sitting in the House of Lords. That would seem to me to be a. challenge of a kind constitutionally wrong. However, in view of what you, Sir Dennis, said about the necessity of getting on with the Bill, I do not want to weary the
Committee with more arguments. I submit the general case, and I hope that the Secretary of State will give serious consideration to this matter, which is not one of particular pertinence to this Bill. I am raising it on general constitutional grounds. I do not want to see the precedent that was created in the past in connection with Indian legislation to be continued any further.

4.10 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. I will not go into the general question outside the immediate purpose of the Amendment, but will confine myself to its application to the state of affairs in the India Office. There has always been the condition as to the Secretary of State's Council that members of it should not be members of either House. I think that is a salutary provision. I think that without it there might be a division of responsibility. The only member of the council responsible to Parliament is the Secretary of State. As soon as you have upon his council members of one or other House, those members might go to one or other House and make speeches or give their votes contrary to the policy of the Secretary of State. That, from the constitutional point of view, would be an untenable position. I hope, therefore, the Committee will maintain the existing condition. The cases quoted by my hon. Friend, namely, that of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff and the First Sea Lord when Lord Beatty held that post, are not apposite. The case of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff was clear. He could be removed from his post by executive action.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can Lord Ashfield be removed from the chairmanship of the London Passenger Transport Board? I believe he is irremovable for a certain period.

Sir S. HOARE: I will not go into the arguments as to the analogy between the chairman of the London. Transport Board and the advisers of the Secretary of State. It seems, to me that the position is very different, I think I could prove that if I had the time, and if it were in order. Be that as it may, I maintain that the Chief of the Imperial General Staff could be removed by
executive action immediately if he took action in another place contrary to the policy of the Secretary of State or of the Cabinet. It is very different in the case of a member of the council who has a statutory position upon it. That being so, and in view of the further fact that we are carrying on a policy which has been in operation for many years, I think the Committee would be wise to reject the Amendment, supposing my hon. Friend does not withdraw it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The chairman of the Unemployment Assistance Board is a peer.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the discussion of these questions is in order.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I remain totally unimpressed by the arguments of the Secretary of State, but, as I do not want to delay the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: I beg to move, in page 150, line 30, to leave out Subsection (6).
I will bear in mind, Sir Dennis, your observations at the start of the Committee stage, and move this Amendment very briefly on behalf of my Noble Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl). Sub-section (6) provides:
Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, it shall he in the discretion of the Secretary of State whether or not he consults with his advisers on any matter, and, if so, whether he consults with them collectively or with one or more of them individually, and whether or not he acts in accordance with any advice given to him by them.
It is quite unnecessary at this stage to repeat once more the very great importance of the Secretary of State's advisers, except to say that apparently everything that the Governor-General does, either in his discretion or in a reserve department, he is acting under instructions from the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State said yesterday that he would consult the advisers on service questions. There was some suggestion made that they would be consulted on questions of finance. On service questions by Clause 250 there is a legal obligation on the Secretary of State to consult his advisers,
but there is no obligation at all on him in matters affecting finance. The failure to be compelled to consult them on matters affecting finance depends on this Sub-section (6).
I would remind the Committee of the very great importance of these financial questions by referring them to what happened in the Legislative Assembly in India when the Finance Bill was rejected, despite the Viceroy's request, by some 66 votes to 41, and the members of the Legislative Assembly refused to withdraw amendments which, if carried, would add some £3,750,000 to the loss of revenue. It is imperative that the Secretary of State, on whose instructions the Governor-General will act on this question of financial stability at the Centre, should be under a legal obligation to consult the Secretary of State's advisers.

4.18 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I think my hon. Friend somewhat misunderstands the existing position and what will be the future position. Under the existing position the Council of the Secretary of State has a statutory locus standiin questions involving charges on the revenues of India. That is quite an explicit duty. This Bill has in almost every respect changed that position. The provisions of the Bill dealing with the future in that respect are very different from the past. That statutory obligation upon the Council of the Secretary of State will, therefore, lapse, because the state of affairs to which it was to be applied has ceased to exist. There is no obligation upon the Secretary of State to consult his Council in finance other than finance in a very limited respect. What he may do in future is for him to decide. Here it will be a specific type of finance, on which the Council has had a locus standi in the past. I suggest that there is really no reason to tie up the Secretary of State any more than he is tied up now. Under Clause 250 he has to obtain the concurrence of his advisers in Service questions. Apart from that statutory obligation he is at liberty to decide on what subjects he consults them. It would be a mistake to tie him up in such a way that he would cease to he a Minister responsible to Parliament and to make for divided responsibility between him and his Council. For these reasons, I hope that we shall not tie up the Secretary of State further than he is tied at present.

4.20 p.m.

Sir REIGINALD CRADDOCK: It is a fact that there will be an enormous difference brought about by the new Constitution. The existing safeguards for the proper management of the finances of India depend a great deal on the constitution of the Government of India. itself. The Finance Minister of the Federation will not be the same type as the present Financial Member. The responsibility, therefore, on the Government of India for maintaining the stability of the Federation, that is to say of the Indian Empire, and of the policies with regard to loans which may be raised in this country or in India, will fall upon the Governor-General in the first place and upon the Secretary of State in the second place. Therefore, I presume that the Secretary of State will continue the practice of having a, financial expert among his advisers to take the place of the Secretary of State's Council. In that case I would represent that although the Secretary of State desires to have a free hand, there are reasons for considering whether he should not require the assent of the Council, or at all events discussion by these advisers of the difficult questions of finance and financial stability, currency loans, etc., in respect of which the advice available and the strength of the Council as it now exists will have been very greatly reduced compared with what it is at the present time. I hope that some modification of the Clause as it stands may be made, at all events in respect of financial advisers.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not recede from his position in any way. Obviously, with a Council of this kind, any reasonable Secretary of State will consult those Members of it who are well acquainted with any particular subject, such as finance, but if once you. lay it down in any form that he must consult certain people you lay a burden and compulsion on certain people and the Minister of the Crown sitting here or in another place, which I do not think is advisable. We have had good and bad Secretaries of State, but it is no earthly good, as I understand the Constitution of this country, to lay it down that Secretaries of State must consult certain people
whether they want to or not. If they are sensible they will consult them; if they are not sensible they are quite hopeless. I do not think you should tie down a Secretary of State to consult certain individuals whether he thinks it is right to do so or not.

4.23 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO: Is the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) right in his assumption of the meaning of the Clause? Suppose this Amendment were accepted and Sub-section (6) were omitted, is there anything in the Bill to render it obligatory for the Secretary of State to consult these advisers on any or every question, for instance on financial questions? It does seem to me rather a pity that the Secretary of State's hands are, as I imagine, perfectly free to consult or not. Sub-section (6) says
Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, it shall be in the discretion of the Secretary of State whether or not he consults with his advisers on any matter, and, if so, whether he consults with them collectively or with one or more of them individually, and whether or not he acts in accordance with any advice given to him by them.
Is it not quite obvious that the responsibility lies on the Secretary of State, and that if he did consult his advisers he would then have to decide whether or not he would accept their advice or whether he would assume responsibility himself? Is it really necessary to have these words in the Bill?

4.24 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: It is very necessary to have these words in the Bill. My hon. Friend has forgotten Clause 250, under which the Secretary of State has to have the concurrence of a majority of his advisers in Service questions, the Secretary of State having a casting vote if necessary. It is necessary to distinguish cases in which he is under a statutory obligation of that kind from the cases in which he can consult his advisers or his council, as the case is now, by his own volition. The object of this Clause is to draw a distinction between those two categories, and I can assure my hon. Friend that it is very necessary to have that distinction. I can equally assure my bon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) that I am very anxious to keep the responsibility of the Secretary of State to Parliament unblurred
over as wide a field as possible. I think that that is the right Constitutional position. The fact that we give the advisers a statutory locus standi in Service questions is a. very exceptional procedure. It is due to the special circumstances of the Services in India, their history and so on, and the fact that they do regard the Council as one of their safeguards. If there was not this historical backing I would stand myself for the undiluted responsibility of the Minister to Parliament without any sharing of responsibility with the Advisory Council.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I find myself in the rare position of being able to support what the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) has said. I think he is absolutely right, and that the Secretary of State is right in saying that responsibility to this House should not be blurred. I think that the Amendment has been moved through misconception of the previous position. It was to protect India and India's finance from this country. The Secretary of State was not to engage in certain expenditure unless he had the consent of people who were there to protect India's finance.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I am delighted to think that at last I have been able to excite the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) into making a really sensible speech.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: After the speech of the Secretary of State I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.29 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I beg to move, in page 150, line 41, at the end, to insert:
or if such notice and opportunity for objection as may be prescribed has been given to those advisers and none of them has required that a meeting shall be held for discussion of the matter.
In this Sub-section 'prescribed' means prescribed by rules of business made by the Secretary of State after obtaining at a meeting of his advisers the concurrence of at least one-half of those present at the meeting.
The object of this Amendment is to continue, with the advisers, a system that has worked very well ever since the Council of India was started, namely, that in questions of minor importance papers
are circulated to the members of the Council and they have an opportunity of expressing their views upon them, so avoiding the necessity of a. formal meeting of the Council. It is a rule of business that has proved to be necessary in the past and I am sure will be necessary in the future.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 265 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. DONNER: On a point of Order. Would it be possible to have a window opened as it is exceedingly close and stuffy in the Chamber?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): If the Committee desire a, window to be opened, orders can be given to that effect, but I fancy it will be found to be much colder than the hon. Member imagines.

CLAUSE 266—(Organisation and expenses of India Office.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.31 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: As to my Amendment to insert, in page 151, line 41, after "of" the words:
India or, after the Federation has been established, of
I would like to ask the Secretary of State a question. Sub-section (3) of the Clause is as follows
There shall be charged on and paid out of the revenues of the Federation into the Exchequer such periodical or other sums as may from time to time be agreed between the Governor-General and the Treasury in respect of so much of the expenses of the department of the Secretary of State as is attributable to the performance on behalf of the Federation of such functions as it may be agreed between the Secretary of State and the Governor-General that that department should so perform.
The object of my Amendment was to have these expenses charged on the revenues of India or, after the Federation has been established, upon the revenues of the Federation. I do not wish to appear to be throwing any doubt upon the Federal plan but it is admitted on all sides that it may be a long time before the Federation actually comes into being. Subsection (1) of the Clause provides:
As from the commencement of Part III of this Act the salary of the Secretary of State and the expenses of his department, including the salaries and remuneration of the staff thereof, shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.
It seems to me that there is a substantial point to be met in this connection and I would like to know from the Secretary of State his answer upon it.

4.33 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I think it is necessary to make this change when provincial autonomy comes into operation. The financial arrangement is set out in the Financial Resolution namely, that the India Office, to use a general expression, will become a Treasury Office. Its expenses will come from funds here and the Government of India will pay towards the cost of the India Office what may be termed agency expenses involved in any duty which the India Office has carried out either for the Federal Government or for the Provincial Governments. The proposal merely changes round the present plan. The present plan is that the expenses of the India Office are paid out of Indian Revenues but the Treasury make a contribution in the form of a grant in aid from British revenues. In future the Treasury will provide for the India Office, the Government of India making a contribution in respect of agency functions performed by the India Office for the Governments in India. In actual practice there will not be a great difference in the expenditure one way or the other and I hope the proposal as set out in the Financial Resolution will be accepted by the Committee.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 267 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 268.—(Contributions from revenues of Federation.)

4.35 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, in page 153, line 34, after "to," to insert" or in respect of."
This Amendment, which is merely of a drafting character, is followed by a second Amendment on the same point which requires some explanation and which proposes to insert the words:
Provided that account shall not be taken of any service before the date of transfer
in respect of which such an allowance or gratuity payable out of moneys provided by Parliament might, if this Act had not been passed, have been awarded under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1919.
It not infrequently happens that a civil servant before going to the India Office has put in some service in another office and it would be wrong that that part of his pension which is attributable to his service in another Department should be charged to the revenues of the Federation. These Amendments together enable that point to be made clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made:

In page 153, line 39, at the end, insert:
Provided that account shall not he taken of any service before the date of transfer in respect of which such an allowance or gratuity payable out of moneys provided by Parliament might, if this Act had not been passed, have been awarded under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1919.—[The Solicitor-General]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 269.—(Liability for existing pensions.)

4.37 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 154, line 23, after "to," to insert" or in respect of."
This again is purely a drafting Amendment, but it is followed by a second Amendment analogous to that which the Committee made in the previous Clause, though dealing with a different kind of case. The new Sub-section which it is proposed to insert here is to cover the case of a man who has been transferred from the India Office to another Department before the commencement of Part III of the Act. It is only right and proper that that part of his pension which is attributable to service in some other Department should not be borne by Indian revenues and this matter had not been expressly provided for in the Clause as it now appears in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 154, line 34, at end, add:
(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) of this Section shall also apply to so much of any superannuation allowances, compensation allowances, retiring allowances, additional allowances, and gratuities awarded after the commencement of Part III of this
Act to persons not transferred by the last but one preceding Section as is attributable to such service before the commencement of Part III of this Act as is mentioned in the said Sub-section (1).—[The Solicitor-General.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 270.—(Aden.)

4.38 p.m.

Mr. DONNER: I beg to move, in page 154, line 38, after "date," to insert:
not later than the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-six.
The object of this Amendment is to fix a definite date for the Order-in-Council separating Aden from British India. I submit that the very reasons which have urged the Government to take this step of separating Aden from British India are reasons for accepting this Amendment. It is obviously desirable, once the decision has been taken, that it should be put into effect as soon as possible. The only reason why we have not proposed to insert words to the effect that it should come into force on the day on which this Bill becomes an Act is because we take into account the administrative difficulties, but if the Government consider that the proposed date is too early, perhaps they will suggest some alternative date, possibly 1st April next year. Clearly it is desirable that some date should be specified and that steps should be taken to see that this policy is translated into action and no allowed to remain as a. mere pious aspiration. I suggest that there would be some danger in that course. I do not know what is the policy of the Socialist party in this respect, but it is just conceivable that they might form a Government before this Order-in-Council is passed and the Socialist party can, I think, usually be trusted to take an anti-Imperial line. I suggest respectfully, therefore, that there is every reason to secure that this separation should take place by a given date.

4.40 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I cannot follow my hon. Friend into the remote and obscure future or prophesy what may or may not happen after some problematic Election. Let me, however, assure him that it is our intention, and I believe it is an intention shared by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) and the hon.
Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), that Aden should be separated from India. It is further the intention of the Government to make the separation as soon as we can. It must take place before Federation. It is our intention if the administrative details can be arranged, and I see no reason why they should not be arranged, that it should take place at or about the time of the initiation of provincial autonomy. It is, however, impossible to fix a definite period in the Bill. Nobody can say exactly how long the arrangement of the administrative details is going to take, but, as I say, it is our intention to bring the change into operation at or about the same time as provincial autonomy.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I had never any doubt that Aden should be separated from India until the speech of the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Donner) but I gather that he is putting it forward as a part of some special Imperialistic policy. During these discussions I have always thought that the position was that Aden was not a part of India and therefore obviously ought to be separated from India. I suggest that the hon. Member by his remarks has done an extremely bad service by encouraging everybody in India to believe that the separation of Aden from India is due to some special policy on our part and is not being done merely for purposes of convenience and better government. In fact on this matter the hon. Member seems to be taking a sort of inverted Congress view.

Mr. DONNER: On the assurance of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for State as to his intention in this matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 271.—(Creation of new Provinces of Sind and Orissa.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir R. CRADDOCK: This Clause raises not merely the question of the separation of Sind—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is mistaken. That question has already been decided and cannot be gone into again.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I only intervene on this Clause in order to get an assurance of the intention of His Majesty's Government that the boundaries of Orissa should be, generally speaking, those suggested by the Joint Select Committee. I realise that the difficulty of laying down in the Act precise boundaries especially in the Southern area, prevents the insertion in the Bill of the actual boundaries but I would like to have a general assurance on the matter.

Sir S. HOARE: I am very glad to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. He took a great interest in this question both in the Statutory Commission and the Joint Select Committee and it must, have been a satisfaction to him to know that the Joint Select Committee accepted the views which he and others urged on this subject. The boundaries will be those set out in the report of the Joint Select Committee.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 272—(A Iterations of boundaries of Provinces and creation of new Provinces.)

4.45 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 157, line 27, to leave out from "Council," to the end of line 30, and to insert:

"(a) create a new Province;
(b) increase the area of any Province;
(c) diminish the area of any Province;
(d) alter the boundaries of any Province."

This is purely a drafting Amendment. What is in Sub-section (2) is brought up into Sub-section (1), and the words are slightly added to in order to snake clear the intention of the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 158, line 1, leave out Sub-section (2).— [The Solicitor-General.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Duchess of Atholl.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: On a point of Order. Is not my Amendment—on page 157, line 39, at the end, to insert:
Provided that no Order in Council under this section shall transfer the civil station of Bangalore or the township of Tangasseri from British India"—
in order? I understood from the Chairman of Committees that I should be allowed to move a proviso with regard to Tangasseri.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We have now passed the place at which the hon. Member wished to move his Amendment.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: My Amendment refers to Tangasseri. Tangasseri is at present in the presidency of Madras, and is not part of Travancore, and, therefore, I think the Chairman of Committees said that this Amendment might be moved.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member may be correct, but we have now got past the point in the Clause on which his Amendment would arise, and, therefore, I cannot call it.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Will it be possible to mention this matter when we discuss the Clause standing part of the
Bill?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Yes.

4.49 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I beg to move, in page 158, line 16, at the end, to insert:
Provided further that no such Order shall vary the total representation of any community in either Chamber of the Federal Legislature.
I need not say very much in regard to this matter. We know what very high tension exists between the various communities in India, particularly between the Hindus and the Moslems, and we know that the condition precedent to any new constitution being framed was that some arrangement should be arrived at by which the various proportional representations of these communities in the different legislatures should be fixed. We know for how long the communities in question were engaged in trying to arrive at an agreement, how, in spite of repeated attempts, they failed to do so, and how finally the Prime Minister took on himself to impose a. communal award. It seems to me very important that in passing this Bill we should do everything we can to secure the stability of that arrangement which has been made, and that nothing would militate more against the smooth working of the new constitution than the fear that the propor-
tions fixed by the award for the representation of the different communities in the various legislatures should be upset.

4.51 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I noted with satisfaction what my Noble Friend said about the necessity of making no alterations in the communal award by which the different proportions should be upset. I can assure her that there is no intention under this Clause of upsetting the communal settlement. Indeed, having had a great deal of experience in connection with the communal settlement, I can assure her that the Government of India, the local Governments, and His Majesty's Government here would be the last people in the world to attempt to make changes that might reopen the whole of that great controversy. I would, however, suggest to her that it is better not to have so rigid a statutory enactment as she proposes. As I say, there is no intention to make alterations by Order in Council. None the less, there might be cases in which small details might have to be adjusted. For instance, supposing there was an alteration in the boundaries of two Provinces and a certain territory was added to one Province, making necessary some change in the communal representation of that Province, I think the Noble Lady will see that some change would be necessary. Having given her the assurance that there is no intention—and I do not think there could be an intention—of making alterations in the award, I hope she will not press this rather rigid proposal.

Duchess of ATHOLL: May I ask whether my right hon. Friend envisages that if there was any alteration of a boundary which might necessitate some slight alteration in the representation, it would still be his aim, his purpose, that the existing majority should still remain the majority in that Province?

Sir S. HOARE: Certainly, I give that assurance. That would be our intention.

4.54 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: The right hon. Gentleman said he must refuse the Amendment of my Noble Friend because it would cause too much rigidity, but may I not call his attention to the proviso in the Clause just prior to the point at which the Amendment would come in, namely:
Provided that no such Order shall vary the total membership of either Chamber of the Federal Legislature.
Sub-section (1) of the Clause states:
Subject to the provisions of this Section, His Majesty may by Order in Council alter the boundary of any Province if, with a view to the creation of a new Province or on other grounds, he deems it expedient so to do.
That might cover a third or it might be a half of the area of the Province, yet the proviso which I have just read says that the total membership of that Province in either Chamber of the Federal Legislature shall not be altered. Does that mean that the members allotted to the new territory or the new Province would be deducted from the members allotted to the old one? If so, of course, there is that loophole to prevent rigidity, but if you had two Provinces occupying the area of what is now one Province, might it not be necessary to increase the representation? What my Noble Friend desires is nothing like so rigid as the proviso in the Clause to which I have alluded. My right hon. Friend admits the principle that it is desirable to do everything possible to maintain the communal award, and that nothing should disturb that award, but an alteration in the representation in favour of one or other of the great religions of India would undoubtedly be upsetting the communal award, and, therefore, I ask him if he will consider that point of view before we reach the Report stage.

4.57 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I do not think it is necessary to reconsider this position. I think my hon. Friend is confusing two things, namely, the number of members of the Federal Legislature and the number of the provincial representatives that go to make it up. The number of members of the Federal Legislature is rigid, but there may be an adjustment as between the various units. As I say, it is our intention to maintain in the spirit and the letter the communal settlement, but in these adjustments it may be necessary to make certain minor exceptions from time to time. It may not be necessary, but I am advised that it is desirable to make provision for it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

4.58 p.m.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: I gather that I may refer to the question of Tangasseri on this Motion, and I do so in the hope that my right hon. Friend may see his way to make a statement on the matter. This question, in my opinion and in that of my hon. Friends who support me in raising it, involves a very considerable principle. This small township of Tangasseri in the South-East corner of India is adjacent to the State of Travancore.' It became Portuguese in 1571, it was taken by the Dutch in 1661, we took it in 1795, and since that time it has been a part of British India and has not been a part of Travancore. The proposal now is to cede this township to the State of Travancore, and I am asking that the irrevocable opposition of the inhabitants of Tangasseri should be regarded in this matter, a proposal which has the. support of no less an authority than Lord Halifax, who, when he was Lord Irwin, said in the House of Lords that he regretted that the people of Tangasseri opposed the cession to Travancore, but that if their opposition was irrevocable, he felt sure that His Majesty's Government would not persist in bringing about the cession. Well, their opposition is irrevocable, and why? On grounds which are religious, social, and political. It is a community of some 2,000 people, and they are all Christians except one family.
Travancore is a Hindu State, but there is a very large number of Christians in the State. The total population of Travancore is something over 5,000,000. Of that number 1,600,000 are Christians, and 868,000 are caste Hindus. The caste Hindus dominate everything in the State. I need only mention the representation in the Legislature of Travancore. In the Assembly the 868,000 caste Hindus have a representation of 25 members and in the Council they have a representation of 10 members; whereas the 1,600,000 Christians have only eight members in the Assembly and two members in the Council.
The inhabitants of Tangasseri have full religious liberty, with their own ceremonies, schools and churches, but they look across the border and find that their fellow Christians in Travancore have not that complete liberty. There is also a difference in taxation. They will be very much more heavily taxed if they
are ceded to Travancore. Their opposition is unvarying and irrevocable; and there is also the consideration that this question involves the very great principle that no community of British Indian citizens should be handed over to a native State against the wishes of that community. There is, I think, riot the least doubt that the practically unanimous wish of the inhabitants of Tangasseri is irrevocably opposed to cession to Travancore. This is a small place, but the principle involved is a very important one, and, with the greatest sincerity, I would appeal to my right hon. Friend to take heed of the clearly expressed wishes of the people of Travancore and to say that Lord Halifax was right when he said in another place that if the inhabitants of Tangasseri were irrevocably opposed to the cession, that cession would not be insisted on by His Majesty's Government.

5.3 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I hope in a very few sentences to give an answer which will not be unsatisfactory to my hon. Friend. Of course, there can be no difference of opinion between Lord Halifax and myself. The hon. Member, as a constitutional student, would realise that that would run contrary to the responsibility of Cabinet Government. Lord Halifax was speaking with the full authority of the Government, and I can only repeat what he said. So far as I know, it has always been the practice of the Government of India to make no transfers of British territory to Indian States if the inhabitants of the British territory are opposed to the transfer. We shall certainly follow that line in our dealing with Tangasseri. I understand that the inhabitants of the township are opposed to the transfer. If that be the case, and I have no reason to suppose that it is not the case, we shall not sanction the transfer. I have been in communication with the Government of India, and they take the same view as I do upon this subject. I hope the assurance I have now given to the Committee, in continuance of the statement made in another place by Lord Halifax, will remove anxiety from the minds of some of my hon. Friends who have taken a very close interest in this question.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: May I express my gratitude to my right hon. Friend. I am quite sure that what he has just said will cause the very greatest satisfaction in Tangasseri.

5.6 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I should also like to say with what relief I have heard the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I remember well not only what Lord Halifax said in another place, but what the Under: Secretary of State for India said in December, that the Government would not go against the ineradicable opposition of the inhabitants. At that time there had been two memorials protesting against the transfer. There have since been two more. My right hon. Friend will remember that as recently as yesterday I asked a question about this, but he could tell me nothing. It was therefore with tremendous relief that I heard the statement he has made, and I assure him there will be very grateful hearts among that little community of Christian people who have been so long under our rule.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: There is one point which I should like to put to the Secretary of State. Does this Clause carry out the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee? Or does it not diverge from it? The Joint Select Committee recommended that when a new Province was to be created the Province affected and the Central Government should be given adequate opportunity of expressing their view, which is done under this Clause. They also said that, if the boundaries of the Province were to be altered, then the initiative should come from the Province and that should have to receive the concurrence of the Central Legislature. In this Clause, by the alteration now made, there is no provision in the case of the alteration of boundaries that the initiative should come from the Province and that the concurrence of the Central Legislature should be obtained. It seems to me that this Clause differs from the recommendation of the Select Committee.

Sir S. HOARE: This is intended to be only a machinery Clause, but I will look into the point raised by the hon. Member. I am rather inclined to think that it will not be necessary to make an addition to this Clause, but it may be a case for
giving instructions in the Instrument of Instructions. I will look into the matter.

5.9 p.m.

Captain SHAW: I would like to ask the Secretary of State if he cannot give us some general idea of what conditions will have to be fulfilled before a new Province is set up. For many years there has been an agitation to set up a new Andhra Province of Telugu speaking people carved out of the Presidency of Madras. There you have a population of 17,000,000 people speaking the same language and living in a compact area. They have a satisfactory budget, and I think that on two occasions the Legislative Council in Madras has passed resolutions in favour of a separate Province. Could the right hon. Gentleman give us an idea of what conditions would have to be fulfilled before we could get an Order-in-Council setting up a separate Province and whether such a Province could be set up before the Federation comes into being?

5.10 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I should not like to say anything that would encourage any substantial body of opinion in India in present circumstances to support the setting up of further new Provinces. The Statutory Commission dealt with the cases of Sind and Orissa, those cases seeming to be much the most urgent among the demands for new Provincial units. I do therefore take the view that it would be a mistake in present financial conditions in India to attempt to start other new Provinces. I know from experience how many controversies are raised as soon as one does start making provision for a new Province in India. I admit that the Telegus in Madras have definitely a case on the grounds of their racial unity, their ancient civilisation and so on, but I think that they and the Government of Madras would make a great mistake in attempting to set up a separate Province. When the time comes to consider questions of that kind, the whole position will have to be taken into account, the financial position, the reactions upon the existing Provinces and all the other considerations we have had to take into consideration a great deal in connection with Sind and Orissa. I could not be more precise. My hon. Friend can see for himself that the Legislatures in India and we here would
have to take many considerations into careful account before we sanctioned any proposal for any new Province.

5.12 p.m.

Captain FULLER: This is a matter in which I have been interested for many years, and I was sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman say what he has just said in regard to Andhra and the possibility of working out some other Provincial distribution in India. He seems to pin his faith to the communal award. The communal award has become sacrosanct in relation to this new Constitution. I am one of those who have always thought that any constitution built upon the communal award is built upon a quick-sand.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I hardly think that the question of the communal award arises on this Clause.

Captain FULLER: I am just coming to that point, when I say that I think this Clause is the most sensible Clause in the Bill, for it does make provision in the future for His Majesty's Government to consider the reconstitution of Provinces, which should, of course, aim at the elimination of the communal award. I think it is the most sensible Clause in the Bill, because it does give an opportunity in the future to solve India's problem and set the people of India on the road to peace.
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill, "put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 273.—(Power of His Majesty to make provision with respect to franchises and elections.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Duchess of ATHOLL rose—

5.13 p.m.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Before I call upon the Noble Lady, I should explain that as the Government have given notice that they propose to put down a new Schedule dealing with these questions it would seem to us far better that any Amendment we take should be taken in the proper place, on the Schedule. Also, I believe it was agreed by the small informal Committee that any discussion of this Clause should be very brief and that detailed discussion should take place later

5.14 p.m.

Major MILNER: I think we ought to have some further information on this matter. This is an extremely important Clause empowering His Majesty in Council to make provision with respect to all these matters set out in the Clause. Will the proposed Schedule include all the qualifications and all the factors in all types of constituency For example, are the matters of special interest, the representation of labour, and various matters of that sort going to be clearly defined and set out in the Schedule? And will the Committee have an opportunity of discussing these proposals and putting forward Amendments if they so desire? Then there are various other franchises than the national franchise, and I am very doubtful, whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to include them in the Schedule. For example, are they going to provide in this Schedule for Provincial electoral colleges and so on, or are they going to be left in the air and decided at a future date by Order in Council? The Committee ought to have all these facts in front of them before they pass this Clause and ought to know that it will not be dealt with sometime in the future by Order in Council. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some assurance on these extremely important points, particularly in regard to the qualifications of special interests and the representation of labour. The Clause provides that an Order in Council may be made in regard to the delimitation of territorial constituencies. I always understood that it was the intention of the Government to appoint a committee or commission, probably of gentlemen in India, to do that delimitation. At what stage is it proposed that that shall he done? Will it. be after the Bill passes or when the Schedule comes before us?

5.16 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Am I right in
thinking that under paragraph (b) it will be possible by Order-in-Council to do away with communal electorates? That is how I interpret that paragraph. If I am right, it is a very serious matter. Hindu witnesses, indeed, put the case against them extremely well before the Joint Select Committee. They showed that communal electorates are incompatible with real democracy in that they make it difficult or impossible to create
an alternative government, and for that reason they take away from the value of any veto given to the Governor-General or Governor. But great importance is attached by the Moslems in India to communal electorates, and, if I read this paragraph aright, it is a dangerous thing to make it possible for His Majesty's Government at any time by Order-in-Council so to alter the qualifications entitling persons to vote in territorial or other constituencies as to do away with the principle of communal electorates.

5.18 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: I want to express the slight anxiety I feel lest the later opportunities of discussing this matter on the Schedule may become shortened. We have been told to-day that there will be seven days for the discussion of new Clauses and Schedules, and possibly nine. Since the original time-table was drawn up there has been an arrangement to add another Schedule dealing with franchise. The number of important questions in the Schedules alone is very great, and, if any of the time is eaten up on the Clauses, the time left will be very much shortened. If the discussions on the Clauses are prolonged, will it mean that the whole of these important Schedules will have no discussion at all?

5.19 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): The hon. And gallant Member for South East Leeds (Major Milner) and other hon. Members must be aware that the proposed new Schedule has been in the Library for a short period, and it has been possible for hon. Members to study its contents. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member will have taken great interest in it in view of the part he took on the Franchise Committee, and I appreciate his interest in the matter. The draft Schedule relates to the territorial constituencies and not to the special interest constituencies or Labour seats, or to the franchise for the Provincial Upper Houses. My right hon. Friend, in answering a question a few days ago, announced that the Schedule would contain the suggested franchise for the territorial constituencies. The Committee will be sympathetic when 1 tell them that a great deal of labour has been involved in putting this
franchise into the form requisite for a Schedule, and it has not been possible in the time for the officers in Provincial Governments or our own officers here to finish this work at the present stage. The Joint Select Committee did not decide on a franchise for the Provincial Upper Houses, to take one instance. I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that the franchise, for example, to do with special constituencies for the Upper Houses will be brought before the House by Order-in-Council and the House will have full opportunity of considering it. There was general agreement in the Committee upstairs, and it was the wish of my right hon. Friend to include the franchise in a Schedule to this Bill. It is in order to meet the wishes of hon. Members that we have taken this course, and in the time at our disposal it is as much as we have been able to do.
The hon. and gallant Member for South East Leeds asked about Mae delimitation of the territorial constituencies which is referred to in paragraph (a) of this Clause. It is not the time to talk about setting up other bodies until we have got the Bill through, but it has been our intention to set up a small delimitation commission to deal with territorial or other constituencies.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Composed of Indians?

Mr. BUTLER: At the present moment, I cannot go into its constitution. Later, when we get to the end of this Measure, it will be possible to give the House further information about our decision in this matter. The noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) asked whether paragraph (b) would give an opportunity for changing from communal to ordinary electorates. That is not the interpretation that I put on this paragraph, and the assurance that I will give to the noble Lady is that the communal award is governed by the original terms of that award; that is to say, that after 10 years, if there be agreement between the communities, action will be taken by His Majesty's Government. This Clause does not add anything to the communal award or alter its terms. The hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) has throughout taken a great interest in women's franchise, and I
appreciate her anxiety to have an opportunity to discuss this matter. The Government wish to have the fullest discussion upon this Schedule when the time comes. The quicker we are able to get on to-day, the more time we shall have when we come to the Schedules to discuss this matter in detail. The hon. Lady has several Amendments on the paper, and when we come to them we shall attempt to give her the fullest possible answers and to consider all these important matters with' the seriousness that they deserve.

5.24 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I would like before we pass on and leave this Clause to be certain whether or not it is possible to allow changes from communal to separate electorates to be made under the Clause. Once it is in the Schedule there will be no chance for 10 years, and then only subject to the agreement of both parties, an agreement which, I fear, you will never get in places where it is most wanted, like Sind and Bengal. If we gave in this Clause the opportunity to His Majesty in Council to make a change we should have far more support for this Bill in India. The Government have the power here to vary the franchise and to make all sorts of modifications in it as laid down in the Schedule. Why cannot we include also the power to make this change? Is it a definite stipulation that we made with Mohammedans that that change shall not be made, or is there any other reason why, when we are giving to His Majesty in Council so many powers to vary the franchise and the constituencies, we do not also give the power to make this change, which is of great importance to India? We know, of course, that we can discuss it when we come to the Schedule, but this is not a question of the initial franchise. We are discussing on this Clause the question of possible changes in the franchise. This is a question of empowering the Government to make a change, and, if we leave it to the Schedule, there is no power for the Government to make a change for 10 years, arid then only if there be agreement between the parties, which will never be arrived at.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: I want to ask your guidance, Sir Dennis. A statement was made from the Chair before you came
in, and I am not clear about one particular. There is on the Order Paper an Amendment which seeks to provide that His Majesty in Council should not debar women who possess the necessary qualifications from being members of certain bodies although seats may be reserved for women on those bodies. It would seem at first sight that this is the convenient point to raise that matter. If the Clause be passed as it now stands, will it still be possible to raise that question on the Schedule?

The CHAIRMAN: My view is that that is a matter which should be discussed on the Schedule.

Mr. COCKS: Do I understand from the Under-Secretary that the qualifications for the franchise for the Second Chambers in the Provinces will not be in the Schedule, and that we shall not have an opportunity of discussing that when we pass this Clause?

Mr. BUTLER: I said that.

5.28 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I made that clear in correspondence which I had with the hon. Member. I ought before we pass this Clause to say a word or two in answer to the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). Let me assure him that there has been no agreement between His Majesty's Government and the Moslem community or any other community. We came to our decision upon the merits of the case. There has been nothing in the nature of an agreement between us or any community upon the subject. We did what we thought to be just, and I believe that it was just. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman attempted to persuade the Committee that we should give His Majesty's Government power by Order-in-Council to alter the communal award. I cannot imagine a more unwise or more dangerous action for us to take. Greatly as we regret the need for these communal decisions, I believe that if we once gave the impression in India that the question was again open, we should not only plunge ourselves into endless controversy, but we should do something much more serious; we should plunge India into a controversy the end of which I could not foresee. I therefore hope that we may leave this Clause as it is, and have the
full discussion upon the problem at issue when we come to the Schedule. If by chance the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is then able to persuade the Committee against the view of the Government—I hope and believe that will not be the case—it may be necessary to make consequential rearrangements in earlier parts of the Bill, but in any case I think the right course is to take the debate when we come to the Schedule.

5.31 p.m.

Major MILNER: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman who, with his usual courtesy, has answered my question so fully, but I am not very happy about the passing of this Clause. So long as the Committee recognise that discussion on these important matters will take place in part on the Schedule, in so far as the Schedule covers them, and that in so far as the other part is concerned it is postponed indefinitely, I have no more to say, but I do not feel happy about the situation, though I appreciate the difficulty which the Government have had in putting into concrete form franchise proposals which are so very complex. They cover a large amount of ground in this case, bringing in questions of finding representation for landowners, the mining industry and labour. Apparently all those matters are to be left over until this Bill has been disposed of and then dealt with by Orders in Council. I should like to have seen the proposals on the Table, but that is not possible. As long as the Committee appreciates the position I do not think we on these benches can usefully say any more.

5.32 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: We all accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that there was no agreement between the Government and the Moslem community in regard to the communal award, but I think he will bear me out that one of the Moslem delegates, before going back to India in November, 1933, left a memorandum with the Joint Select Committee which shows the enormous importance the Moslem community attach to this question. He said the delegates had only come to the Round Table Conference to discuss Federation on the understanding that the communal award which had been given a few months before was not disturbed. That bears out
what I said a few minutes ago, that that is the whole basis on which they came in to discuss Federation, and therefore it would be a very serious matter if by Order in Council His Majesty's Government should alter it.
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill, "put, and agreed to.

Clause 274 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 275.—(Adaptation of existing Indian laws.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.33 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: Perhaps the Secretary of State can make one point clear to me. It is difficult to understand whether the adaptations and modifications referred to will be specified in the Order, or whether the Order will merely take a general power to make modifications in the law. If the latter is the case I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that Parliament will, in effect, lose all control once the Order is made.

5.34 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: As I understand it, the Order will, in the nature of the case, specify the modifications and adaptations which are to be made. This Clause is necessary in order to enable us to prevent any gap in the existing law after this Bill becomes an Act.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 276.—(Foreign jurisdiction.)

5.35 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 159, line 39, to leave out from "State," to the end of the Subsection.
This Clause deals with the rather technical matter of the exercise by the Crown of its powers under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act in parts adjacent to British India but which are not British territory. I will give one example. In the case of certain of the railways which run through Indian States the Rulers of those States have ceded jurisdiction to the Government of India in respect of certain matters connected with the railways and, in some cases at any rate, in respect of a certain area on each side of
the line. The territory does not become British territory, but there is the power to make laws and regulations which run on the railway, though it is in an Indian State. That power is exercised under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act. In so far as the area at present covered by this procedure comes within the Federal part, the powers of the Federal Legislature will supersede the powers at present exercised under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act. The first Sub-section of the Clause deals with that matter, and I think hon. Members will see that the position is clear. Then there comes the question of the powers now exercised under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act which will not be merged in the Federal power either because they are altogether outside it or because they are in relation to a State which is not federated. In an earlier Clause of the Bill—in Clause 2, I think—all those powers are re-vested in the Crown, and this Clause, as originally drafted, expressly dealt with the position of how those powers should be exercised elsewhere, the provision being
In any other part of India by such person as His Majesty in Council may designate in that behalf.
There was no intention to confer that power upon anybody but the Governor-General, but these words have caused some apprehension in the minds of the Rulers of the States that it might be the intention of Parliament that this power could be delegated to anybody. By the Amendments which have been put down it is proposed to omit these words, which are quite unnecessary. The powers will be delegated to the proper representatives of the Crown in all proper cases, and there is no intention that the power should be exercised by anyone save by the Crown's representative in India in relation to the Indian States, who will be the Governor-General.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made In page 160, line 12, leave out from "Council" to the end of the Sub-section.—[The Solicitor-General. ]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

5.40 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I should like to ask one or two questions. I think this Clause would apply to the civil station of
Bangalore which, if I remember aright, is administered under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act. I should very much like to know how this Clause will affect that civil station. The Committee will recall that for the last year or more the Government of Mysore have been asking that the civil station of Bangalore should be retroceded to them. It is established, I think, that this civil station is Mysore territory, though administered under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, and it is therefore under British administration. It is inhabited by British, Anglo-Indians and Moslems to the number of some 30,000 or 40,000 people, who have protested vehemently and repeatedly against being transferred to the administration of Mysore. I wish to say nothing against the State of Mysore, but these people live in Bangalore under British administration, they have the benefit of British scholarships for their children, and even though the transfer to Mysore would mean the payment of lower taxes than they pay at present they have repeatedly memorialised the Viceroy against being transferred.

The CHAIRMAN: I was not in the Chair when an Amendment dealing with Bangalore was mentioned some little time ago, but that was ruled out of order, as Bangalore is not a subject which can be discussed on this Bill.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I understood it could not be discussed under that other Clause.

The CHAIRMAN: No, it was not merely out of order on that Clause, but out of order anywhere on the Bill. It is a matter of arrangement between the Sovereign Power and the Ruler of a State.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Bangalore is administered under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, which is mentioned in this Clause. I am sorry if I entered upon a discussion of the subject, but it is one on which I feel strongly and I was rather carried away. Would it be in order to ask the Solicitor-General one or two questions? I should like to know whether the Clause would apply to Bangalore, and whether it would make it possible for certain powers in respect of the civil station of Bangalore to be handed over
to the State of Mysore, and if so what powers could be so handed over.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am anxious to give answers to all proper questions, but perhaps I can shorten the discussion. I wish to raise a point of Order. My point of Order is that this Clause deals merely with machinery and so far as the machinery is concerned the machinery in respect of Bangalore is unaltered. It would be exactly the same if this Clause were passed as it is now, and that being so I submit that it would be out of order to deal with what might be done in respect of Bangalore—with the position in Bangalore at present or as it might be in the future.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman states that the administration of Bangalore will remain exactly as it is, and suggests that it is out of order to discuss the question of any future dealings with Bangalore, and in my view that is correct. That was the intention of my original Ruling. I permitted the Noble Lady to ask questions as to whether what was contained in this Clause affects any dealings with Bangalore, but any explanation as to how it would affect those dealings does not arise. Subject to that, any question of how Bangalore shall be dealt with or what dealings there shall be with Bangalore in the future, would be outside the scope of the Clause.

Ducess of ATHOLL: I understand that. Am I also to understand that the Clause makes no difference in the machinery with which Bangalore will be dealt? May I know whether the machinery would enable the Crown by Order in Council to transfer Bangalore, without the question being submitted to Parliament?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The
question of administration is something quite outside the Foreign Jurisdiction Act whereby the Crown can legislate in foreign territories under agreement. Exactly how that power has been used is quite outside the scope of this Clause.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: May we have an explanation as to why the administration of Bangalore remains as it is now? It is important to know whether, in the event of secession taking place, Parliament would have an opportunity of discussing the matter.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not the point which we are discussing.
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill, "put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 277.—(Provisions as to death sentences.)

5.47 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: I beg to move, in page 160, line 34, to leave out from "Act," to the end of the Subsection.
The number of murders committed in India in proportion to the population is very much higher than in this country, arid, I believe, than in any other part of Europe. Perhaps, among other parts of the world, the United States may come close to India in this respect. The usual way of dealing with the question of whether a murderer should be respited and his sentence commuted is by the advice of the responsible Minister to the Crown, or to the President of the Republic, with the exception, again, of the United States, where the Governor exercises his unfettered decision. India presents a picture different from Europe. There are the two races, the Hindus and the Mohammedans, of different religions and hating each other. If the Governor-General had to be advised by a Minister and that advice was accepted, it follows in the natural course that there might be grave dissatisfaction, or even tumult and the loss of lives. The Governor-General should be the only one to exercise a decision in regard to the commuting of a sentence, and his decision should be absolutely unfettered. He should not act, unless he decides to do so, upon the advice of his Ministers.

The CHAIRMAN: I am very sorry, but there appears to be no question of the Governor - General's discretion involved in the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment and so I do not understand how his speech applies to the Amendment.

Sir W. WAYLAND: I may be stupid, but that is my construction of the Clause. I am moving to leave out, in the latter part of Sub-section (1), the words:
but save as aforesaid no authority in India outside a Province shall have any power to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted in the Province.

The CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. and gallant Member moving to leave out those words?

Sir W. WAYLAND: Yes, Sir.

The CHAIRMAN: I shall put the Amendment as he has moved it, but I do not see that the Amendment has anything to do with taking away from the Governor-General any necessity for his being advised by anybody else.

Sir W. WAYLAND: I wish to leave out all the words after "Part III of this Act." Then the Governor-General would have in his discretion
all such powers of suspension, remission or commutation of sentence as were vested in the Governor-General in Council immediately before the commencement of Part III of this Act.

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I am mistaken on my part.

Sir H. CROFT: What authority in India outside a Province other than the Governor-General is there?

5.52 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment is still under a little misapprehension. Possibly he is thinking that the words he proposes to leave out deal with another thing. The purpose of the earlier part of the Sub-section is to provide that in future, subject to one change, the Governor-General shall deal with the question of suspension, remission or commutation of death sentence. The change made is that in future he will deal with that matter in his discretion instead of dealing with it as the Governor-General in Council.

Sir W. WAYLAND: In his unfettered discretion?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In his unfettered discretion. My hon. Friend wants to leave out anything to do with the death sentence, but the words have to deal with other matters which are not provided for in the last part of the Clause. The last three lines which he wants to leave out provide that except in the case of death sentence,
no authority in India outside a Province shall have any power to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted in the Province.
In other words, provincial councils shall be the final authority to deal with commutation, remission or suspension of sentence, except in death sentence, and therefore my hon. and gallant Friend's object will not be effected by leaving out these words. His object is perfectly secure by the earlier words provided in the Clause which he does not want to leave out. I think that also answers my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I would like to ask the learned Attorney-General what is intended. I am wondering whether it is true to say that the Governor-General is a person who is an authority outside a Province. I should have thought that in certain respects the Governor-General could not be regarded as outside a Province, because he is in every Province in a certain sense. I am wondering whether the words carry out what the Government intend. I should have thought that the Governor-General would be regarded as a person having authority in every part of India under the Federation.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think the words deal with the point in question, but, on my hon. Friend's authority, further inquiry shall be made into the question.

Sir W. WAYLAND: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. In doing so I would suggest that these Clauses should be written so that the ordinary layman can understand them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 278.—(Courts of Appeal in revenue matters.)

5.55 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 161, line 2, after "tribunal, "to insert" in British India."
There are four or five Amendments in the name of the Secretary of State, and it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I dealt with them altogether. They cover slightly different points, but if I follow that plan it will save my rising a number of times. They are all very small points. The Clause sets up procedure by which the Governor can estab-
lish a tribunal to deal with revenue matters in some of the Provinces in India. There are at the moment tribunals quite independent of the executive which deal with revenue matters, but in some Provinces that is not the case. When the Government becomes responsible to a Legislature it will be obviously undesirable that the Government should decide revenue cases in which itself is involved, and the intention of the Clause by the Legislature is that a tribunal should be set up. The Clause provides, however, that the Governor may in the interim constitute such a tribunal himself.
The first Amendment makes it clear that the Clause only applies to British India. The second Amendment substitutes the words "local government" for
"Governor in Council." In one Province in India the tribunal contains a Minister and the words "local government" cover this special case as well as the ordinary case. The next Amendment makes two changes. It enables a single individual to constitute a tribunal. Further it substitutes individual judgment for discretion in connection with the selection of members of the tribunal. This is a matter on which we think that it is desirable the Governor should act with his Ministers and should consult them, and that they should, if possible, agree as to who are to be the members of the tribunal. The last Amendment affects the payment of salaries. The Clause does not provide for the payment of salaries to members of these tribunals and the Amendment provides for salaries and allowances as the Governor may determine.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 161, line 6, leave out "Governor in Council," and insert "Local Government."—[The Solicitor-General.]

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 161, line 8, to leave out "persons as he in his discretion thinks," and to insert:
person or persons as he, exercising his individual judgment, may think.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I do not know, Sir Dennis, whether it is your intention to call the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp)—in
page 161, line 9, to leave out from "jurisdiction" to the end of the Clause —but, if so, perhaps I can say better what I have to say on that Amendment than on the present one. I am a little doubtful about yielding free discretion to individual judgment, although I agree that that is not so bad as that the appointments should be made by the Governor solely on the advice of his ministers.

The CHAIRMAN: I am not prepared to call that Amendment, at any rate without hearing reasons to justify it, so perhaps the hon. Member had better raise the point now.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The point raised in the Amendment is rather a serious one, and it will still remain serious even after the Amendment we are now considering, assuming that that is made. Here is a case in which we are laying down that something is to be done by the Governor acting in his discretion, as the Bill stands at the moment, or acting in the exercise of his individual judgment, as no doubt it will be in a few moments; and yet we have a provision by which power to act on his individual judgment can be taken away from the Governor by an Act of the Provincial Legislature. So far as I am aware, this is the first occasion on which we transfer to an Indian legislative assembly the right to decide whether in future some Act of the Governor shall be enacted by him in the exercise of his individual judgment, or whether it shall not be possible for him to enact it at all. Technically, I suppose, all Acts are enacted by him, but an Act may be one which he may have to enact solely on the advice of his ministers. It seems to me, that having regard to our general responsibility for the Indian Constitution Act, we ought not to be carried away into making a fundamental change in constitutional relationships by an Act of a Provincial Legislature. Although this matter may not be a very big one, it raises a point of considerable constitutional importance, and I understand that that was in the minds of my hon. Friends who have tabled this Amendment. I hope, therefore, that, if you are not going to call their Amendment, we may have some explanation by the Solicitor-General as to why it is proposed to authorise in principle a very big con
stitutional change over which there can be no check, so far as one can see, either by the Secretary of State, the Governor-General, or the Governor, acting in their discretion.

The CHAIRMAN: What the hon. Member has said seems to justify the way in which the power not to select Amendments has been exercised. The Amendment in question seems to have been put down with the express intention of raising a point which perhaps was. relevant, but which would not be effected by the Amendment.

6.5 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am not quite sure if I followed altogether the argument of my hon. Friend, but I will try to explain to him the intention of the Clause. The Clause contemplates that the legislature ought to set up, and must set up, tribunals to deal with revenue matters. At present such matters are in effect dealt with by the Executive, but that, as I said just now, is not a proper permanent procedure, especially when the Executive in future, instead of being, as it is at present, partly an official body, will be wholly dependent on the legislature. I think my hon. Friend will agree that it is desirable that a tribunal should be set up to deal with these matters. The exact nature of the tribunal and its appointment are proper matters for the Provincial legislature. The Clause merely deals with the interim position until the tribunal has been set up by the legislature, and, in order to provide what we may call an emergency tribunal, the Governor is given power in the exercise of his individual judgment to go ahead and set up a tribunal which will function until another tribunal has been enacted by the Provincial legislature. It may be assumed that the appointments to that tribunal are going to constitute a perfectly proper provision to deal with the matters which come before it. If it is not a proper tribunal, there is a power of veto which can be used, and that would be a matter for the Governor-General. We think, however, that it would be wrong to anticipate in the Bill that a tribunal provided by the legislature will not be provided on a proper basis. This simply makes. provision for the interval before legislation can be considered.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I do not think the Solicitor-General has seen my point. If it is contemplated that eventually this tribunal will be appointed by the Governor-General acting on the advice of his ministers, I see no reason why that should not be the position initially. If initially it is thought so important to safeguard the appointments that the Governor can over-ride the decision of his ministers, I do not understand why later on it is proposed to let the appointments be made without any safeguard at all.

6.8 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: When the Bill is finally discussed and passed and enacted, clearly it must lay down how the appointments are to be made. The reason why we give the Governor the last word here is because he has to go ahead and get this tribunal set up, and he will be able to go ahead even in the event of disagreement between himself and his ministers over details. We thought it wise that he should have this power, not so much as a fundamental constitutional matter, but in order that the Governor may be able to go ahead in his own time.

6.9 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: I am sorry to say that, I was not in the Committee just now when the discussion on these tribunals commenced, but I should be very glad if either the Solicitor-General or the Secretary of State could explain the necessity for constituting new tribunals—

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member does not realise the position. We are discussing a number of Government Amendments together, and at the moment we are on the Amendment in page 61, line 8, to leave out "persons as he in his discretion thinks, "and insert "person or persons as he, exercising his individual judgment, may think. "The actual question being discussed now by the Committee is whether the words should be "in his discretion" or "exercising his individual judgment."

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 161, line 11, at the end, to add;

"(3) There shall be paid to the members of any tribunal constituted under the last
preceding Sub-section, such salaries and allowances as the Governor exercising his individual judgment may determine, and those salaries and allowances shall be charged on the revenues of the Province.—[The Solicitor-General.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

6.11 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: As I was explaining just now, I could not understand the necessity for making this special provision in the Bill. The revenue administration of the various provinces is conducted under the ordinary reigning law of those provinces—

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I must rule that to answer that question would be out of order, because it was discussed and answered before the hon. Member came into the Chamber.

6.12 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: Are we not entitled to ask the Solicitor-General why it is necessary to transfer these powers, and why they cannot be retained in the hands of the Governor, in view of the very large sums of money that will be involved?

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not here at the time, but that is exactly the point which the Solicitor-General dealt with in explaining the Amendments.

Sir H. CROFT: Are we not allowed to ask a question?

The CHAIRMAN: Not for the purpose of obtaining the same answer which has already been given.
Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 279.—(Persons not to be subjected to disability by reason of race, religion, etc.)

6.14 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I beg to move, in page 161, line 13, after "India," to insert:

"or in the United Kingdom, and no subject of a Ruler of an Indian State wheresoever domiciled.
I would ask the Committee, in order that they may understand the reason for this Amendment, to look at Clause 111, which says:

"Subject to the provisions of this chapter, a British subject domiciled in the United Kingdom shall be exempt from the
operation of so much of any Federal or Provincial law as …imposes by reference to place of birth, race …any liability, restriction or condition in regard to travel, residence, the holding of property or public office, or the carrying on of any occupation, trade, business or profession.
I would like to ask the Secretary of State or the Solicitor-General whether "public office" in that Clause means the same as "office under the Crown "in Clause 279. If it does not, and it does not seem to be quite as wide as the later phrase, then there is no provision that a British subject domiciled in England—and "domiciled" in law, I understand, applies to anyone who has an intention of returning to a, certain place—cannot be made ineligible for an office under the Crown in India. That is the first point which the Amendment seeks to clear up.
The second point is that inhabitants of a Federated State are not included unless the protection of the Clause is extended to them A Provincial Government might impose all kinds of restrictions on the subjects of a Federated State. The ease for the protection of subjects of a non-Federated State is not so strong, but in practice such persons are eligible for office in British India just as British Indian subjects are eligible for office in another Indian State. Therefore, I submit there are two useful purposes to be served by this Amendment, one to make quite clear that there is full reciprocity between British and Indians in regard to offices under the Crown, and the other to give opportunities to subjects of Indian States who otherwise might be debarred from them.

6.16 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: British subjects domiciled in the United Kingdom are dealt with, as the Noble Lady said, in earlier Clauses of the Bill. As far as the particular point which she raised is concerned, the words "public office" which occur in Clause 111 are wider than "office under the Crown in British India" in the present Clause. The words have a good deal of history behind them, and have long been enshrined in Government of India Acts, and have been taken from Section 96 of the present Act. Under the general scheme of the Bill, those domiciled in the United Kingdom having been dealt with in an earlier Clause, this Clause is as it were the charter in the matter of those domiciled
in India. As regards the second part of the Amendment, the subjects of Indian States, my right hon. Friend is proposing to put down a new Clause making it clear that they shall be eligible for appointments under the Federation. As far as the Provinces and States are concerned, it would be a matter of agreement between them, but it should be put in the Bill that subjects in the State should be as eligible as anybody else for Federal posts, that is to say, that there should be no ineligibility on the ground that they are subjects of the State in respect of Federal appointments.

6.18 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The hon. and learned Gentleman's statement has covered the two points which the Noble Lady raised, but it has not covered the Amendment. The Amendment deals not merely with ineligibility for office. It has far greater importance for the second part of Sub-section (1) than it has for the question of office;
No subject of His Majesty …shall on grounds only of religion …be prohibited on any such grounds from carrying on any trade, business or profession in British India.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at Clause 111, which is where the persons domiciled in the United Kingdom are dealt with, he will find exactly the same words. I only referred to "public office" because that was the only point which the Noble Lady made. The Clause goes on to say:
the holding of property or public office, or the carrying on of any occupation, trade, business or profession.
I think that that is the point.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That refers to people domiciled in India. I was thinking of the inhabitants of the Indian States. The Amendment if it goes through will be of enormous benefit to the inhabitants of the Federated States. There could be no discrimination against them in British India. I am sure that we do not want there to be any discrimination in British India. That is far more important than any question of British subjects domiciled in this country. It affects 70,000,000 or 80,000,000 whose livelihood is dependent really upon their being included in this Clause. It is a bad official habit to think that when we
are dealing with a question like this, it is only the question of eligibility for office that matters. If it is a question of who shall be entitled to get a job, all the great brains at the India Office and in India, concentrate upon that point, and will provide amendments ensuring it and see to it that all is well. That is a matter of very trifling importance to India as a whole. What is important is that there should be no discrimination in Sind, Bengal or Madras against any of the inhabitants of the Indian States in those countries.
This is one of the Amendments which, if they cannot accept it as it is, the Government might at least include in their further amendment when they are thinking of putting words into the Bill which will ensure the right of the inhabitants of the Indian States to hold office in a municipality, or in a Province, or anywhere else. They might consider including in that prospect the promise that there should be no discrimination against them in the carrying on of trades or in their ways. I only wish that the Amendment covered the general facts that there should be no discrimination in any part of British India on the ground of race, religion or colour. That is what we want. At least let us give it to the unfortunate subjects of the Indian States, whom, by this Bill, we are putting perpetually into an anomalous position, the power of not being discriminated against in the various Provinces concerned.

Sir B. PETO: May I ask the learned Solicitor-General why there is this narrow definition of office, namely, "office under the Crown in British India" in this Clause, instead of "public office" which he said was more widely phrased in Clause 111, which deals with the
Provisions as to British subjects domiciled in the United Kingdom.
He told us that there was some history behind the particular words in Clause 279, but if we wish to prevent discrimination against the holding of office, why should not Clause 279 cover the whole field even under the municipality as well as under the Crown?

6.23 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: We hope just as heartily as does the right hon.
and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) that there should be no discrimination, and we hope as heartily as he does that in this matter there will be no discrimination anywhere within the British Empire. One might extend one's aspirations and hope that there will be no discrimination within the civilised world, but we have to deal at the moment with the provision it would be wise to put into this Bill affecting, as we only can affect by this Bill, numbers of citizens of British India. We do not think that it would be right, as far as the subjects of the States are concerned, to go on beyond the federal basis. It would be imposing certain restrictions on British India and her trade and professions without giving any corresponding disability to the States.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The States always draw from British India.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That is what you would be doing. You would be putting a statutory disability or restriction on British India. You would say to British India, "You may not discriminate," and therefore in any negotiations which you might conduct on this matter for mutual benefit and opportunity, your hands would be tied, although the hands of the Rulers of the States would be free. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman shakes his head. That is what you would be doing.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is a very nice argument, but it is not true, because the negotiations are going to deal with the Princes. We are talking about the Princes' subjects who have no voice on the question.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That is quite another point, as the right hon. and gallant Member knows. In dealing with these matters and talking about negotiations, one must refer to the unit with which one is negotiating, whether it is a democratic government or whatever sort of government it is. If the Amendment were accepted, it would impose a statutory restriction on British India and leave rulers perfectly free to do, if they chose, the very opposite of what we would be preventing Indians from doing. Therefore, I am completely at one with the argument of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in hoping
that there will be nothing of the kind, and that British Indians will have every facility in all the States, and that the subjects of the States will have complete facilities in British India. Quite plainly it would not be right under this Bill to introduce a provision of this kind applying to one of the parties, and not restricting the other side. Hoping as we do that mutual agreements and co-operation in this, as in other matters, will increase as a result of this Bill between the States and their subjects and British India, we do not think that on this subject it would be right to go beyond what is provided in the Clause.
In answer to the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), the only explanation of the difference is that in Clause 279 we have stuck to the formula there which had its origin 102 years ago, in 1833. Speaking for myself, I could hot say at the moment whether there would be any adverse repercussions if we departed from the ancient formula and applied in this Clause the rather wider phrase which is being applied to subjects domiciled in the United Kingdom in Clause 111. I do not for the moment know of any objection to it, and my right hon. Friend will certainly go into it. I cannot go further than that at the moment, but that is the reason why there is a distinction between the two Clauses.

6.29 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend in what he has said, but as an old Tory I am anxious that uniformity should be maintained. In this Bill you are introducing separate phrases, and surely it is more desirable to keep the two Clauses which deal with the same subject of the disability of certain people in line rather than include words which, in the circumstances of 100 years ago, might have been admirable words, and I hope that he will take that matter into consideration.

Mr. COCKS: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman explain whether there is any special definition of the word "office"? Does it mean the same as "employment"? I might give the instance of a soldier in the Army and ask whether his position would be an office under the Crown.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not think that it would. The words cover
ordinary civil and public offices, but I do not think they would cover officers in the Army.

The CHAIRMAN: Does the Noble Lady press her Amendment?

Duchess of ATHOLL: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that the right hon. Gentleman is going to consider this matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move, in page 161, line 14, after "colour," to insert "sex."
The Clause reads:

"No subject of His Majesty domiciled in India shall on grounds only of religion, place of birth descent, colour or any of them be ineligible for office under the Crown in British India, or be prohibited on any such grounds from carrying on any trade, business or profession in British India.
The object of the Amendment is to make it clear that all women shall be eligible for office under the Crown and for carrying on any trade, business or profession in India. We want not merely to remove any sex bar, but, if possible, to prevent one from being set up. In this country we have thrown open to women many of the professions in which only a very short time ago it would have been considered out of the question to admit women. Generally speaking, public opinion both in this House and outside would say that we have passed the experimental stage with regard to women. We accept the fact that has been established that in every department that they have taken up women have shown equal ability, and sometimes superior ability, compared with men. I take my stand on this Amendment on exactly the same ground as I took my stand on the Amendment last night. When it comes to citizenship I do not differentiate between men and women. They are equally entitled to be recognised as citizens and to enjoy the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship.
The fact that Indian women are to get the vote and to be encouraged to take part in local and central government affairs is a sufficient reason why they should be eligible to carry on, if they so desire, any of the businesses or professions that operate in their own country. The day has long gone by when we should
put up any sort of bar on account of sex. It is not very long ago that many—I was going to say respectable people—important people thought that the colour bar was something that ought to be maintained. We have grown beyond that, at least in India. In our general relations we never think of the colour bar now, nor do we think of the religious bar. There was a time in my own lifetime when people of the Jewish faith could not sit in this House because they could not take the oath in the form in which it was laid down. Previous to that Catholics had great difficulty in taking the oath. We have grown out of all that sort of superstition. Jews sit here, Catholics and Protestants sit here; nothingarians sit here and nobody makes any inquiry about it. We have found that differences of faith and opinion are not the questions which decide whether a man or a woman is good or evil. It is what they are that matters. We say that women should be eligible for any office under the Crown in India just as in this country. We have had one woman Cabinet Minister and other women as Ministers. In the Civil Service in this country there are women filling some of the highest posts. Strangely enough, we have women who sit under the gallery in this House to advise Ministers when they are defending their Estimates and the work of their Department. Women at the universities often beat men in the attainment of distinction.
We believe that women in India, given the same opportunities, will prove themselves of equal value. In the United States under Mr. Roosevelt, in spite of a great deal of criticism, the woman Minister of Labour who has helped him to carry through the very enormous task of dealing with the industrial situation has been one of the most excellent ministers. Anyone who heard that lady broadcast must have realised that she understood the whole, work of the department and everything connected with the work she had in hand. We do not see why in the new Constitution of India there should not be a safeguard, just as there are many other safeguards, securing that the sex disability shall not operate. I will not detain the Committee any longer at this stage except to repeat, because it is very necessary to repeat it, that I make this claim not that women should take
part in public affairs simply to look after women's questions, but that they should take part in every department of life in the countries where they live as ordinary citizens, and be treated as ordinary citizens with the same status, rights and duties as men.

6.41 p.m.

Major MILNER: My right hon. Friend has covered the ground very fully, but I should like to draw a distinction between this Amendment and the one that was before the Committee last night. In response to the appeal that we made that a woman should be appointed on the Secretary of State's Council the right hon. Gentleman said: "Do not tie my hands. Now that I have a perfectly free hand, I can appoint one if I so desire." That reply will not be open to the right hon. Gentleman now. All that we are asking is that women should not be considered ineligible and should not be prohibited from taking office under the Crown or from carrying on any trade, business or profession in India. That is the position to-day in this country, and I can see no reason why the same provision should not be made perfectly clear in the Indian Constitution. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment, it will not put any positive obligation upon anybody, but will simply mean that the restriction which at present exists in some parts will no longer exist, and that women will be eligible for appointment to offices under the Crown and it will be permissible for them to take up any business, trade or profession. The Secretary of State will still have a free hand. The Amendment will simply mean that women are to be put on the same basis and level as men, as is the case in this country. I can see no reason why that should not be the position in India.

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: On a point of Order. Does not the word "subject" in this Clause include females as well as males?

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

6.43 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I would advise the Committee not to make any alteration in the actual wording of the first three lines of the Clause. The history of this Clause was as follows: The Indian delegates were anxious to have some declaration
of fundamental rights. The request that they pressed upon the Joint Select Committee and the various Round Table Conferences was that somewhere or other the effective words in Queen Victoria's Proclamation should be repeated. These are the words substantially from Queen Victoria's Proclamation. They have become consecrated by long usage in the minds of the Indians, and I suggest to the Committee that the wise course is to retain the words. It might be assumed from that that the world has not advanced since 1857. Although the word "subject" does, I maintain, include both men and women, the word "subject" in the minds of the people of 1857 may not have had the comprehensive meaning that it has in our minds now. However, I suggest that the best way to deal with the issue is to leave the words in the first three lines as they are and for the Government to put down a new Subsection to the appropriate Service Clauses, making it clear that the Secretary of State can recruit women to the various services covered in that part of the Bill. That will make it clear that in the matter of public offices we contemplate no discrimination on the ground of sex. The actual conditions must decide whether women should be recruited, but we will undertake to make it clear that in our view there should be no discrimination on the ground of sex.
A more difficult question comes up with the phrase about trades and professions. It is much more difficult to deal with trades and professions, for this reason. The Government control entry into the public offices, but do not control entry into the trades and professions. It is obvious that there must be certain cases in the field of trades and professions in which women should not be allowed to enter. I will tell the Committee the kind of case in my mind. There might be cases in the mining profession in which in the interests of women themselves they should not be allowed to enter. There may be cases due to the peculiar circumstances in India, for instance, the present circumstances in a Province like the North-West Frontier Province, where it might be wise to put some restrictions, perhaps a veto, upon the entry of women into a particular trade or professional occupation. I hope it is clear that there are difficulties in the way in connection
with trades and professions which do not apply to the same extent in the case of public offices.
Having given an undertaking as to public offices, I will look again into the question of trades and professions and see whether, even in that case where, obviously, there are greater difficulties, we could put some restriction in the Bill against the possibility of discrimination in regard to sex. It would have to be circumscribed and within certain limited conditions, first, because the Government do not control entry into the trades and professions, and, in the second place, because there may have to be restrictions in the interests of women themselves. I hope that with the assurance I have given, the Committee will feel that we are doing everything in our power to make it clear that in the future there will be little or no discrimination on the ground of sex.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: We should be quite different persons from what we are if we did not express our gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. The first part satisfies us completely, and I would like him, when he is considering the second part, to consult my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) and see whether they cannot agree on the widest interpretation. In these circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Miss RATHBONE rose—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Lady, no doubt, realises that the effect of her insisting on speaking will be to negative the Amendment. I am not sure whether that is in accordance with her wishes.

6.52 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: I realise that, but the fact of the Amendment being negatived will not prevent the right hon. Gentleman from carrying out the undertaking he has been good enough to give. I do not want to waste the time of the Committee, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the answer he has given. The reason why I am speaking is that there are other reasons which have not been dealt with which make us lay stress on the Amendment. I feel that it is necessary to keep in mind, when he is carrying out the undertaking he has
given, as to how he can safeguard the interests of women in the professions, there is a real danger, unless safeguards are put in, that women in the future may be excluded from some of the professions they already occupy. Grave results may follow. I do not share the pessimistic view of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and his friends as to the results of this Bill, but we must recognise that some of the pessimistic results may follow; they are not inconceivable. We might have a strong reactionary wave in India which would sweep women out of the small number of offices they have in Provincial government services and; in the Provinces.
You are setting up a very reactionary form of Federal Government. Suppose that government choose to pass a law excluding women from the legal or medical professions. Unless there are some safeguards in the Bill, that sort of thing is not impossible. It may be very unlikely, but who five years ago would have thought that Germany would relapse into mediaeval barbarism? We have to safeguard women against such a strong reaction against western customs as would gravely imperil the slender protection they have now from their position in medicine and law. I will not enlarge upon the matter, but I compliment the. right hon. Gentleman and hope that he will bear that in mind, and as far as possible reduce to a minimum the possibility of putting restrictions upon women in Government services or in the trades and professions. I could not follow him when he instanced the case of mining. I am afraid that it is only too easy to get round these fundamental Clauses. Merely to say that there is to be no bar on the ground of sex will not prevent discrimination against women on what may be called reasonable grounds which are not grounds of sex. If it could be proved, for instance, that if women entered into a certain profession it would be dangerous to the lives of women or the lives of others, it would not be necessary for the legislature to bar them on the ground of sex only. I think the possibility against discrimination should be reduced to a minimum.

6.57 p.m.

Major HILLS: On this question the Secretary of State has taken a great deal
of interest, and I should like to ask him one question on the second part of the Sub-section. As far as public offices are concerned, so far as the Civil Services are concerned, I gather that the right hon. Gentleman will go the whole way. Did his promise extend to the opening of all professions in India? I do not mean trades. There may be dangerous trades, but I cannot think of any dangerous professions. Will his proposal open the legal profession and the medical profession, or the profession of architects which have hitherto been regarded as men's professions? I need not exaggerate the importance of the question for the future of India, and I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman is to decide it here, and not leave it to be decided elsewhere. If I can get an assurance that all the professions which have hitherto been filled by men will be open to women who are fit to take their place—

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: May I put a question to the right hon. and gallant Member? How can you open the professions in the East unless they are opened by the people themselves? We have professions in this country like that of Holy Orders, which are not generally given to women. What power would any Secretary of State in this country have to open that profession; and if it is denied here how can we rebuke people in another country?

Major HILLS: We opened the Bar and the solicitors' profession and university degrees to women in 1918, and I ask that we should put India in the same position as this country. That would be a very great thing for India. I agree with the Statutory Commission that the future of India depends largely upon Indian women. I hope the right hon. Gentleman can assure me that in all these professions in which educated women are able to devote their lives, he will be able to recruit all women who are suitable.

6.59 p.m.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Can the Secretary of State give any indication of the public offices to which this will admit women? I can understand that they will not become officers of the Army, but will the civil service be open to women? Will it be possible for district magistrates to be women? Will it be possible for the Viceroy to be a woman? Did the delegates to the Round Table Conferences or the Joint
Select Committee contemplate anything of that kind when they expressed a general opinion in favour of women being admitted to public offices?

7.0 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I welcome the statement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made, for I am extremely glad to hear what he said about the admission of women to public offices. I should like to support what my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) said in that I hope he will be careful how he limits their right to enter trades, business and profession. I think it has been forgotten that the legal profession is already open, but I would stress the importance of being certain that the medical profession remains open for women, since there is an enormous field of work for them there. While I agree that there may be occupations such as mining underground, the actual work of hewing and carrying which women do not do in this country, and that there may be other occupations it is better they do not enter on the ground of health, I would ask him to remember the handicap of Hindu widows, their handicap of not being allowed or supposed to marry again, and the urgency of it being made possible for them to help themselves, to get away from what is often a miserable existence. I would urge him to leave the field as wide open as he can. It may be some time before public opinion in India comes round to this view, but I do entirely approve any statement of this kind by the Imperial Parliament, for it will do a great deal to help the general status of women in India. I do agree, also, with the Joint Select Committee how much it will help the advancement of India for the women to have a better education and to take a more active part in the State.

7.3 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I really have nothing to add to what I have said in my earlier statement. We have to apply this principle with common sense. We are agreed on the principle, and also that it must be applied with common sense, and that restrictions will he necessary. I agree, however, with what every speaker has said that we want to keep these restrictions to the lowest possible point. I think the best course I can take is that, having made the statement I have, I
should consult hon. Members who are obviously particularly interested in this question, and see if we can agree to a form of words for the Report stage. With reference to a form of words about trade and professions, I think they will be more difficult than a form of words about public offices.

Amendment negatived.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move in page 161, line 18, to leave out Subsection (2).
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), who is not in his place to move the Amendment, did explain the purpose of the Amendment to me and even though I do it inadequately I would like to present it to the Committee. My right hon. and gallant Friend would do it more efficiently than I could. The point he has in mind is, first of all, to move to leave out this Sub-section. My right hon. and gallant Friend is now here, so I will close my remarks

7.5 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am so sorry. I think everyone knows that this is an admirable Clause, at least the first part is. Under the first part;

"No subject of His Majesty …shall on grounds only of religion, place of birth, descent, colour or any of them be ineligible for office under the Crown in British India, or be prohibited on any such grounds from carrying on any trade, business or profession in British India.
Everyone will agree that that is an admirable Clause. I only wish that it could o be applied to the whole world. If that were enacted for the whole world, we should not have discrimination against Jews in Germany. So far as that part of the Clause is concerned let it stand. But, the second part of the Clause provides. if I may so put it, for the knocking of the stuffing out of the first part. Under the second part of the Clause "Nothing in this Section shall affect" exactly what we want to prevent, namely, discrimination. The second part of the Clause allows discrimination in the case of Hindus who are not of the agricultural caste. The second part allows legislation such as is already in force in the Punjab to be imposed or enacted anywhere else in British India, so that this Clause one more example of the hostility to the,
Hindu which is betrayed in almost every section of this Bill. The law in the Punjab which discriminates against the Hindus is not merely safeguarded, but can be imposed in Sind, Bengal or the North-West Frontier, or Assam, where anti-Hindus are, I believe, in the majority.
This is the only example in India, if not in British India, of discrimination between two sets of British subjects, not absolutely on the ground of religion, but on the ground of caste. Those people who do not belong to the agricultural caste are not allowed to acquire land for agricultural purposes. Of course, we have never had the opportunity in this House of discussing the Punjab law, for it was passed in the Punjab and approved by the Governor-General. I am perfectly confident that such a law would never have obtained the sanction of this House if put before it. The law was imposed because the Hindu is predominantly a merchant and moneylender, and a good deal of money is lent by the Hindus in the Punjab on agricultural land to the Mohammedans. There is a natural tendency all over the world in that case to preserve the agricultural caste, the agricultural population, from the danger of being sold up and the danger of the land changing hands, a very natural feeling prevalent in this country and other parts of the world.
Let us observe the result of that sort of law. The agriculturist in need of money has to pay more for that money because his security is less. Therefore, their economic position is worsened. When they are sold up, the land being mortgaged to the Mohammedans, they get a smaller price because there are fewer people in the market. The bulk of the people in the market with money are not allowed to bid. The Mohammedan landlords are the only people allowed to buy, and they have not got much money, though enough to buy land provided the price is low enough. The agriculturist, therefore, has to pay more for money to carry on his business, and when the land is actually sold it only fetches half the price it should. The inevitable result of interference with the free play of the laws of supply and demand seems to be that that economic law comes and hits you back, the holdings of big Mohammedan landlords being
increased and the smaller man being frozen out, so that there is an accumulation of land in fewer hands, just as there was in this country when the small yeoman farmer was frozen out by the big landlord, and as was the case with the latifundium in Rome. This all comes from the good-natured feeling against people having to sell up to pay the moneylender. But that ends in just as much ruin for the small farmer, with smaller prices for land as an agglomeration of estates.
That, however, is by way of a digression, for it was necessary to say what this legislation is. Under this Clause that legislation may be extended. I have two completely different Amendments down, my first being to leave out Subsection (2), so as to have no discrimination between races in India. My second Amendment, if the first be not accepted, is to- leave the law as it stands in the Punjab, but to prevent it from being extended. The Sind is the most difficult case of all.

The CHAIRMAN: I think, perhaps, I had better tell the right hon. and gallant Gentleman which Amendment I called, namely, the first one, which, of course, covers the others.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: To leave out Sub-section (2)?

The CHAIRMAN: That is so, but, of course, the greater includes the less, and that includes subsequent Amendments. I would ask anyone who takes part in this discussion to bear in mind the comparatively narrow point raised in this Amendment, which is not the question of the abolition of this discrimination in any way whatever, but simply provides that no subject shall

"on grounds only of religion, place of birth, descent, colour or any of them be ineligible for office under the Crown in British India.
It is simply that this shall not be used for the purpose of discrimination. Then comes the particular provision that this shall not be held to affect the operation of certain existing laws.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think that on that point it goes further. This is not to prevent the operation of existing law for that is covered by the second Amendment, but there may be a law passed hereafter.

The CHAIRMAN: I quite agree, but that only adds point to what I have said. The only effect of this Clause as it stands is that it provides in the first part that it shall not affect or alter a certain state of affairs.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: If this Clause is taken out, it does not alter the existing state of affairs, but Sub-section (2) does not prevent what is already being done in the Punjab from being done in other parts of India.

The CHAIRMAN: No, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I argue that point with you?

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had better go on and make his case.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What I wish to prevent is that the Punjab law should be accepted as being the normal form of legislation which might be adopted in other Provinces, in spite of the first Sub-section of this Clause.

The CHAIRMAN: If that Amendment were moved to this Clause it would be definitely out of order. This Clause is not directed to altering that law. It is a mere proviso for the sake of caution, to the effect that the first Sub-section shall not have a certain effect.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The first Subsection has a definite effect. If it remains in the Bill it will definitely have a certain effect. It will make it impossible for there to be any discrimination between the agricultural classes.

The CHAIRMAN: That is where the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then I will leave it out of the question for the moment. Let the first Sub-section of the Clause stand and we are safe, the Hindus are saved. If the second Sub-section remains in the Hindus are not safe and we shall be subjecting the Hindus all over India to a disability on the ground of religion and agricultural caste, a disability to which they are not liable now. This was all in the Joint Select Committee's Report. It was all in the White Paper. There was a special proviso there that this Punjab ordinance should be preserved in both.

Sir S. HOARE: It is not an ordinance; it is a Government of India law.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But affects only the Punjab. That makes no difference. Therefore it may be extended by the Government of India to other Provinces as well, which makes it all the more dangerous. In the past, under the existing state of affairs, it was an Act of the Assembly in Delhi, I understand.

Sir S. HOARE: I think it was before the Assembly time.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not think so.

Sir S. HOARE: It was in 1900.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But it still only affected the Punjab. Can we have any assurance that under this Bill it will not be within the operations of Sind legislation to impose similar laws on Sind Province? In the Punjab the numbers of Hindus and Mohammedans are nearly equal, and the balance is held by Sikhs, who are Hindu and agricultural. In Sind the Mohammedans are in a majority; 17 per cent. are Hindus and 83 per cent. are Mohammedans. So it will he a greater temptation to that legislative body, with a permanent and statutory majority, for the Mohammedans in office to pass a similar law, and they will be able to do it if we do not remove this Sub-section from the Clause. You have all the Hindus in India saying; "This Bill is unfair to us and directed against us at every turn." They point to this Sub-section as an example of the unfairness. Do the Government wish to remove that suspicion on the part of the Hindus, or do they not? If they accept the Amendment, all suspicion on the part of the Hindus will be removed.
There are two things the Hindus are desperately interested in. One is the abolition of the statutory minorities in the Mohammedan provinces, and the other is this discriminatory legislation. If the Government wish this Bill to be accepted by Indians, if they believe that it is in consonance with all the traditions of the British Empire, then they must meet that objection. They have met the objection of the Princes and of the Mohammedans, and have declared an award which anyone who has studied it must regard as having anti-Hindu bias. Let them show, by making this sort of
legislation impossible, that they wish to be absolutely fair between Hindu and Mohammedan. Without that, the feeling will become more and more accentuated. There is time between now and the Report stage to make the matter clear. The leader of the Hindus in the Assembly and the Chairman of the Hindu Mahasabha are on their way to England now; they started on the 28th March. Will the Secretary of State receive the Hindus as in the past he has received the Princes and the Mohammedans? Will he get their point of view and take cognisance of it, and consider their interest? The fact of the matter is that the Government and the India Office have regarded the Hindus as the bad boys—

Sir S. HOARE: That is quite untrue.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is perfectly true. I do not know that they have regarded them so, but they have treated them so.

Sir S. HOARE: It is not true.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Government have said that these people are the agitators.

Sir S. HOARE: There is no foundation
whatever for what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, and he is making the greatest possible mischief between this country and the Hindu world in making statements of that kind.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The mischief between this country and the Hindu world has been made by this Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well. A little justice to the Hindus is wanted, and not discrimination.

The CHAIRMAN: A great deal of this discussion has been very much far away from the Amendment, and I must ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to keep to his Amendment. We have done very well this afternoon until within the last two hours, during which we have got through less than we did in half an hour earlier.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am thinking about the attack made on me and the statement that I am making mischief. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that what has made mischief between him and the Hindus is putting this Bill through.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman may defend himself against an attack, but I cannot allow him to make another attack and he must keep now within the limits of his Amendment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In this House at the present time the only people who are keeping India and England together are the Labour party.

The CHAIRMAN: That statement is out of order on this Amendment.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I think it would be convenient if I took part in the discussion at once in order to give the Committee a slightly different version of the Punjab Land Alienation Act. Reinforcing what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, I think it a great pity that the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) with his experience should have regarded this Act as having been couched in any spirit of hostility to the Hindus as such. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had examined a little more closely the operations of the Punjab Land Alienation Act he would have seen that the Act in reality is not intended to discriminate against Hindus as such, but is intended to stop agricultural land being taken away from what are known as the agricultural tribes in the Punjab. If one examines the constitution of those tribes one finds that there are many Hindus included in the scheduled list of agricultural tribes at set out in the Act. For instance, the Jats of the South-East Punjab are protected. The Gaur Brahmans are also Hindus and are also protected by the operation of that Act. Many of the Sikhs are scheduled in the agricultural tribes, and they are also protected by the operation of the Act. A similar Act operates in the Bundelkund district of the United Provinces. It is largely Hindu landowners who are protected by the operation of an Act similar to that of the Punjab.
I, therefore, hope that the right hon. Gentleman will at once realise that the fact that there is legislation of this sort is not intended to be hostile to the Hindu community, and that in considering his pet subject of the Punjab Land Alienation Act he will revise his views as to the Act and its operation. I had the honour of being born in the Punjab
and have been closely associated with it, and during most of my career have heard about this Act, which is only slightly older than myself. The Act is bound up with the whole structure of the Punjab. That is why we have found it necessary to insert Sub-section (2) in this Clause. It saves the operation of that particular Act, which we consider vital to the present situation in the Punjab. But we should realise that in future the people whom it is going to affect are those who will probably wish it to be continued in operation. If we were to take the advice of the smallest landowners in the Punjab, who are saved by the operation of this Act, we would realise that they wished it to continue in order to stop the alienation of the land to the moneylending classes in the Punjab, as was happening in 1900, when the military classes who are very much bound up with the agricultural tribes—from the agricultural tribes a large proportion of the military are recruited—showed by their demeanour that had there not been such an Act passed there might have been a very serious situation in the Punjab; and such a situation might arise in the future if this Bill did not have regard to the operation of an Act of this particular sort.
In view of this statement about the Land Alienation Act I hope that the Committee will realise the importance of saving its operation. In regard to later Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman, I hope the Committee will realise that Sub-section (2,b) saves certain customary law in the Punjab, particularly the law of pre-emption. It gives to the villagers of any village, if it is to be sold, the right to be the first buyers of the land.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I owe the Committee some explanation of my position in this matter. I moved this Amendment, which stands in the name of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), largely in order that I might get some information as to what is involved in this Sub-section. 1 did so on my own responsibility and not in any way committing my hon. Friends who sit with me. I have listened with great care to this discussion, and to the
information given by the Under-Secretary. After the somewhat acrimonious discussion of a few minutes ago and the more pacific intervention of the Under-Secretary later, I feel that I am not justified in carrying any further my opposition to the Clause. I think I appreciate the honest apprehensions felt by my right hon. and gallant Friend, but, for my own part, the Under-Secretary has to a large extent removed any apprehensions which I felt. I dare say it is necessary from the Government's point of view that Sub-section (2) should be included in the Bill. I would have preferred the simple declaration of rights with which the Clause opens, without any qualification, but perhaps it is not possible to leave it in that bald manner. I like Sub-section (1) very much indeed. 1 think it is a fine and noble declaration of rights, and I am sorry that it could not be left in the clear and simple way in which it is set out in Sub-section (1) without the limitations which follow in Sub-section (2). But there it is. I gather that the Government feel that Sub-section (2) is necessary, and therefore with very great regret—because I never like deserting a comrade in the middle of the fight—I must withdraw from the field and leave my right hon. and gallant Friend alone in possession.

7.32 p.m.

Major MILNER: I should like to make some reference to the Amendment on the Paper in my name which proposes to leave out paragraph (b).

The CHAIRMAN: May I point out that when I called the Amendment now under discussion I indicated that that point could be discussed on this Amendment. I find that I shall have to put this Amendment in such a way as to save the Government Amendment which stands later. I had overlooked that for the moment.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: I have an Amendment on the Paper which proposes to insert after the word "area" in line 25:

"Provided that such law does not affect any interest already created in such land, or any remedy which would, but for such law, have been available against such land in respect of liabilities incurred before the commencement of any such law.

The CHAIRMAN: That Amendment. is not selected.

Major MILNER: I am grateful to-you, Sir Dennis, for having made the position clear. The reason why I desire to speak on the point as to paragraph (b) now is because as the Clause now stands it preserves a certain disability attaching to the scheduled or depressed classes, and my purpose is to ensure that that should not be the case.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order. If you put the Question "that the words stand part" down to the point at which the Amendment of the Secretary of State comes in, is it not the case that we cannot discuss the other parts of the Clause which arise after that Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN: No, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong. We discuss the Amendment as it is on the Paper.

Major MILNER: As I understand the purpose of this Clause is to preserve the right of pre-emption, a purpose with which I agree in the circumstances as explained by the Under-Secretary. My point is that the Clause—after the general declaration of which my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) has spoken in such high terms—goes on to say that nothing in that declaration shall affect the operation of any law which recognises the existence of some right, privilege or disability attaching to members of a community by virtue of some personal law or custom having the force of law. I take it that the social and economic difficulties—some of them of a terrible nature—under which the scheduled classes suffer is included in the expression "customs having the force of law." I desire to omit paragraph (b) in order to ensure that members of these depressed classes shall not be discriminated against by reason of such a provision. The paragraph would preserve a discrimination which I and those sitting with me desire to see removed. I therefore hope that the Government will either agree to the omission of the paragraph or will consider some other alteration of the Clause which will meet my point while preserving the right of pre-emption in the Punjab.

7.37 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I wish to say how very glad I was to hear the statement of the Under-Secretary on this matter. I have been very anxious ever
since I learned of the existence of these Land Alienation Acts as to the possibility of their repeal as a result of the transfers proposed under the Bill. I hope my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) will forgive me if I say that I find it difficult to recognise him from the speech which he made just now. I have always regarded him as being par excellence the friend of the poor and oppressed of all races in the Empire overseas, and I do not feel that he was appearing in that role this afternoon. He seemed to be rather led away by his sympathy with the Hindu minority in Sind. I sympathise with his anxiety in regard to that minority but I feel that my right hon. and gallant Friend has been led by his sympathy with them into playing a role rather the same as that played the other day by another hon. Member who championed the cause of the moneylenders. I never thought I would hear the cause of the moneylenders championed in this House, and I am sure there are many hon. Members opposite as well as hon. Members on this side who feel that the moneylenders—

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: I was championing the cause of the Indian mercantile community.

Duchess of ATHOLL: It sounds very well when it is put in that way, but I think if the hon. Member reads his speech he will see that it was much more specific than that.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: It depends on the way in which it is interpreted.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I can only say that I listened to the hon. Member with great surprise, but I listened to my right hon. and gallant Friend this afternoon with even greater surprise. I do not think he had all the facts clearly in view. He spoke of Moslem moneylenders but I understand that moneylenders are seldom Moslems. Again it is not a question of Hindu or Moslem but of the cultivator—in the majority of cases a very poor man —and the moneylender who is charging rates of interest going up, I understand, as high as 100 per cent. and even 150 per cent. That is a state of things absolutely unknown in this country and very difficult for us to realise. It is only when we realise all the facts and realise what it is that has brought about legislation
of this kind that we are in a position to judge whether it ought to continue or not. These Land Alienation Acts have been passed mainly under British influence—the influence of British officials who knew the great poverty and difficulties of the peasantry and the need that there was for saving them from the moneylenders and preventing their lands from being mortgaged.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: Perhaps the Noble Lady will inquire whether it is not a fact that the Land Alienation Acts both in the Punjab and in Bundelkund have been declared by official bodies not to have been altogether for the benefit of the people for whose benefit they were introduced.

Duchess of ATHOLL: No doubt that may be the opinion of some people, but I know others with great knowledge of the conditions of the peasantry who regard them as a protection for the peasantry and who live in dread of seeing them repealed under a new Constitution. I am very glad therefore that the Under-Secretary has found it possible to safeguard them. I know that the point of view mentioned by my right hon. and gallant Friend opposite as regards the Hindus in the Punjab has been put very strongly, but I would ask him to bear in mind that the caste system though it may not be as rigid as it was in former days, is based on occupation, and it has therefore to be remembered that there is not the same view in India in regard to restrictions on following particular occupations that we have in this country. It cannot be as great a deprivation to the Hindu who comes of a money-lending class not to be able to acquire the ownership of land as we should feel such a restriction to be in this country if we had any barrier of that kind. In any case as these laws are for the protection of the very poor I am thankful that they are being preserved by this Clause.

7.42 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: When the Noble Lady speaks to me in that manner it goes to my heart, because she and I have fought a long fight together on these matters, but in this case she is wrong, and the Under-Secretary is wrong. If these laws provided a protection for the poor, then we should all be
in favour of them, but that is not the case. It is a delightul thing, no doubt, to prohibit people from borrowing money, but suppose that a man wants to borrow money.

The CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss on this Amendment what the law is or what it does.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The whole defence of the Government on this Amendment has been that this law is for the protection of certain classes. That is a delightful idea. One has only to say that a law is for the protection of somebody and we immediately assume that it is therefore for their good. But we are all moneylenders, and the sooner we realise it the better. If we were not to buy the Noble Lady's land, where would she be? The real point is this. I think this is a bad law. I do not think that it has operated in the right way. It has pro heed the natural result of injuring the people whom it was meant to protect. But I should be satisfied to withdraw this Amendment if I understood from the Under-Secretary that this provision is solely for the preservation of this particular law, and does not give power to all Provinces to enact similar laws. If it is solely a question of safeguarding the Punjab Land Alienation Act, then cadit quaestio—I withdraw the Amendment. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that that was so, but he did not say it in so many words. Does this open the door to die enactment of many similar laws in other parts of India?

7.45 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: The hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) raised the question of paragraph (b) and asked whether it would preserve the disabilities under which the depressed classes labour and which we all wish to mitigate. According to the terms of the Sub-section, this would have to be a disability having the force of law. That would not apply to the social disabilities of the depressed classes, which we wish to see remedied by the extension of the franchise to them, the operation of the special responsibility of the Governor for minorities, and so forth. This is intended solely to preserve the customary law which prevails, for example, in the Punjab and which it is of value for certain classes of the community to preserve.

Major MILNER: Will the hon. Gentleman make the paragraph more precise? It appears to me to be much wider than he has indicated. Could he not have it reconsidered before the Report stage with a view to making it more precise, to relieve the depressed classes from discrimination?

Mr. BUTLER: I am advised that it is perfectly clear, and this is the first occasion, so far as I know, on which these words have been regarded as not meeting the future of the depressed classes in the way we should like to see it met. Naturally, however, I will look into it again and take advice upon it. The right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) asked me whether we should be able to say that there would be no legislation in any other Province under the terms of this Clause. I am afraid I cannot give him that assurance, because we do not wish to rule out the possibility of similar legislation in any other part of India which might have the same objects and achieve the same results and benefits for certain sections of the agricultural population. This Subsection is destined primarily and fundamentally to deal with the Punjab Land Alienation Act, but I would not be honest if I told the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that it was our wish to reserve this Sub-section for the purposes of the Punjab solely. I think that answers the two points raised in the discussion. I note what the Noble Lady the Member for Kinross and Western (Duchess of Atholl) has said, and I am glad to think that we are actually in agreement for once.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: Does this mean that a law could be passed by a caste majority incorporating caste privileges which are valid now only by custom and giving them the force of law? Take the case of the depressed classes and the use of certain wells or their exclusion from schools. Is it possible that a Bill might be passed giving the force of law to that which is at present valid only by custom?

Mr. BUTLER: That is certainly not the intention, and I presume that if there were any Bill introduced which so vividly disagreed with the proper interests of minorities as to pass legislation, for example, about wells, the Governor would
certainly intervene by virtue of his special responsibility for the minority in question.

Mr. ATTLEE: Is not the danger of this Clause the effect of its operation in the future? If you wish to preserve such a thing as the Punjab Land Alienation Act, that might be done by referring to past action. It seems to me to mean that a caste majority or a privileged majority could, without any objection except from the Governor's responsibility, which might not be exercised, be used to give the force of law to all kinds of injurious customs.

Mr. BUTLER: I told the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) that I would examine the wording of paragraph (b) Our interpretation of it is that the hon. Gentleman need have no apprehension about it at all. I will, however, examine his words, just as I said I would examine the words of the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: Will the hon. Gentleman look into the similar proviso which appears in my name as an Amendment to Clause 435 in relation to Burma?

Mr. BUTLER: Certainly, when we come to that Clause.

Amendment negatived

7.51 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, in page 161, line 22, after "land," to insert "situate."
It is not quite clear from the drafting of this Sub-section whether we achieve the objects which I have already described to the Committee. It is not quite clear, for example, that it would be possible under the Sub-section for a non-agriculturist to sell land to another non-agriculturist, which, of course, the Punjab Land Alienation Act does not prohibit. This is therefore a drafting Amendment in order to safeguard the particular objects of that Act by the terms of this Sub-section.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 161, line 22, leave out "to any person not," and insert" and owned by a person."—(Mr. Butler.)

Mr. BUTLER: I have a further Amendment in page 161, line 25, after "area." to insert:
to any person not belonging to some such class.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: I wonder whether the words "some such class" are not too vague and indefinite and not sufficiently meticulous. The words "some such class" might be misinterpreted.

Mr. BUTLER: I am advised that these Amendments which I am moving on behalf of my right hon. Friend are destined to fulfil the objects which we have in view, and I think the words "some such class" relate to the sort of class which this, legislation affects. I think they are quite satisfactory.

Sir B. PETO: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the point? It really does seem vague to put "some such class" in an Act of Parliament. I cannot remember any such words being inserted in a Bill before, when you are dealing with classes, to say that the same thing is to apply to "some such class."

Mr. BUTLER: I would remind the hon. Baronet that in the Punjab Land Alienation Act the agricultural classes are defined in the Schedule, and the words "some such class" would apply to a member of those classes as defined in the definition of an agricultural class in the Punjab Land Alienation Act. I am informed, however, that the drafters do not object to the words "any such class" being substituted to make it slightly more exact.

Sir B. PETO: If the words that the hon. Gentleman has now suggested were in the Bill, there would be no objection whatever to them. I agree that "any such class" would be much more correct drafting.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: I am glad I brought up the point.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I would like to point out the reason for the change. Apparently the castes are carefully scheduled in the Punjab Ordinance, but if it is to be applied in other districts, it will not be the same castes, and therefore these words "any such class" are introduced specifically so that that legislation may be passed in other Provinces.

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps it will meet the general convenience of the Committee to substitute the words "any such class" for the words "some such class."

Amendment made: In page 161, line 25, after "area," insert:

"to any person not belonging to any such class.—[Mr. Butler.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

7.55 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I should like to raise the question contained in an Amendment to this Clause in my name which the Chairman did not select, because I think that there is some substance in it. After the words in the Clause:

"No subject of His Majesty domiciled in India shall, on grounds only of religion"—
I was desirous of inserting "caste or religious status." I have not that familiarity with India that many have, but religion is something which differentiates one general community from another, and I do not understand that the word "religion" will discriminate between a number of communities inside a general religious community. Might I furnish an analogy? In this country, broadly speaking, we have no religious discrimination. There are, I think, one or two offices that cannot be held by Roman Catholics or Jews for particular reasons arising out of the establishment of the Church of England, but, apart from that, there are no religious discriminations in this country. There is no religious discrimination for or against the Church of England, but it happens to be true that a clergyman of the Church of England cannot be elected to this this House. For the purposes of my analogy, I will call a clergyman of the Church of England a Brahmin. We have, therefore, a caste discrimination. I think very definitely the fact that a clergyman of the Church of England cannot sit in this House is of the category of a caste discrimination, though it is not a religious discrimination. I believe the reasons are that the clergy are believed to be represented in one sense by the Bishops in another place.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The reason was that Horne Tooke was a parson, and they did not like it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I know the Attorney-General, who has strong views on the Church of England, not very dissimilar from my own, if that is any comfort to him, may contribute something, but under this Clause as it stands I think you cannot discriminate in favour of a Mohammedan against a. Hindu or in favour of a Hindu against a Mohammedan. You are, however, still free to discriminate in favour of one caste of Hindus against another, and I do not believe these words as they stand carry us sufficiently far. There is one other point that I want to raise. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Kirkpatrick), who was a little doubtful about Subsection (2), expressed the hope that the Under-Secretary of State when he came to Clause 435 would give consideration to all these points, hoping, in other words, to raise the same points on a later stage than the Committee stage, so that if we made the Amendment in Clause 435, it could be inserted by agreement on the Report stage in Clause 279.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: No, it was because much of my Amendment was more applicable to Clause 435 than to Clause 279.

The CHAIRMAN: I think we had better come back to this Clause.

Mr. WILLIAMS: As far as I can make out, Sub-section (2) of this Clause was really inserted because of the Land Alienation Act in the Punjab. There is no Punjab in Burma. That is the only point I wish to raise.

The CHAIRMAN: I have just told the hon. Member that he must not discuss Burma.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I agree.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 280.—(Compulsory acquisition of land, etc.)

8.1 p.m.

Mr. MOLSON: I beg to move, in page 181, line 30, to leave out "in British India."
Perhaps I may deal with the first two Amendments in my name together, as one is consequential on the other. The Subsection at present reads:

"No person in British India shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.
I am moving two Amendments, to omit "in British India" in line 30, and to insert after "property" in line 31 "in British India," so that the effect will be that no person shall be deprived of his property in India. It seems quite clear that in a Constitution of this kind there is no reason why anyone living in any place should be deprived of his property in India save by operation of law.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This is an improvement from the layman's point of view. The effect of the Clause without the Amendment would probably be the same, but I accept it.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether it covers the point raised in my Amendment, which is the third on the Paper, because there is the further case that somebody living in India might have property outside India which, on account of action in India, might be taken away. There is property represented by pieces of paper, and it is conceivable you might have an action of that kind. I drafted my Amendment to go a little further than the Amendment we are now discussing. I think it raises a point of real substance. I do not know whether the Attorney-General has considered it, but my Amendment covers all that is in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) and a little besides, and gives a little further protection which ought to be afforded.

8.3 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If the property is outside India, no expropriation can take place by virtue of any legislation in India. That covers the point which I think my hon. Friend intended to raise in his Amendment.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Suppose I am living in India and I possess some property outside India by virtue of some form of document, and an Act is passed in India whereby the possession of that document is transferred to somebody else, and with the transfer of the document passes the property. In that case, clearly an Act of the Indian Legislature would transfer property which in fact was situated outside India. I think there is a further
point for consideration, and I ask the Attorney-General to give consideration to it.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If the
piece of paper is in India, I suppose, in theory, the Indian Legislature can transfer that piece of paper from A to B, but that would not affect the transfer of any property that happened to be mentioned in the piece of paper, or for which the piece of paper was a title deed. The Indian Legislature could not transfer property outside India by legislation which they passed.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 161, line 31, after "property," insert "in British India."—[Mr. Molson.]

8.4 p.m.

Mr. MOLSON: I beg to move, in page 161, line 34, to leave out from "acquisition" to "unless" in line 35, and to insert:
of property belonging to any person or the compulsory extinguishment or modification of rights therein.
There are three Amendments standing in my name which are more or less consequential. With your permission, I would like to deal with all three and explain the general purpose I have in moving them. I feel that my friends and I owe an apology to the Committee for having put down so many Amendments which are rather confusing, but it has been in an attempt to devise a form of words which will be effective for the purpose and which will not be unduly hampering to the new Legislature to be set up in India. As I understand it, the purpose of this Clause was to give legislative effect to certain recommendations which were made originally in the fourth report of the Federal Structure Committee of the Round Table Conference, where "there was general agreement to the proposal that property rights should be guaranteed in the Constitution and provision should be made whereby no person could be deprived of his property save by due process of law and for a public purpose, and then only on payment of fair and just compensation, to be assessed by a judicial tribunal." That was generally agreed to at the Round Table Conference. It was a demand made by Indians,
who were in many cases chiefly concerned about real property, and it was supported by the European community in India who were anxious that, at the same time that they were protected against discrimination, they should also be given protection against expropriation. The Government accepted the principle of this recommendation and in the White Paper it is provided, in paragraph 75, that
they are satisfied that certain provisions of this kind"—
that is fundamental rights—
such, for instance, as the respect due to personal liberty and rights of property …can appropriately, and should, find a place in the Constitution Act.
Then, finally, this recommendation was accepted by the Joint Select Committee which, in paragraph 369, recommends that

"legislation expropriating, or authorising the expropriation of, the property of particular individuals should be lawful only if confined to expropriation for public purposes and if compensation is determined, either in the first instance or on appeal, by some independent authority.
I am sorry to say that in the Clause of the Bill as drafted, the Government have not carried out the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee. There is a number of very serious omissions in this Clause. In the first place, a distinction has been drawn between real property and personal property. In the second place, there is only provision for protection against the expropriation of land if it is the property of a private individual. It would appear that a company does not obtain protection. In the third place, there is no protection against the compulsory acquisition, the expropriation, of property belonging to a private person, unless it is acquired for a public purpose. I would point out that it is very easy to imagine, for example, in the case of the permanent settlement in Bengal the Legislature there might wish to deprive certain people of their property without compensation, and not take it over for a public purpose but transfer it to some other person. In the fourth place, even if these various conditions are satisfied and therefore there cannot be expropriation without compensation, there is no provision in this Clause as drafted for
that independent assessment of the compensation to be paid which was recommended by the Joint Select Committee.
We therefore feel that there is no good purpose in this Committee examining with so much care Chapter III of Part V of this Bill in order to make certain that there should be no unfair discrimination against British commercial interests in India if under this Clause it is possible for all property that is not real property, all property that belongs to a company and not to a private individual, all property that is not acquired for a public purpose, to be expropriated without compensation and with no provision for the compensation to be paid being assessed by an independent authority. It is for that reason I move this Amendment. In the third Amendment we are inserting a provision that there shall be assessment by a tribunal approved by the Governor-General or Governor in his discretion.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) on the series of Amendments which stand in his name and the names of his colleagues. As far as I can see, they more than cover the point raised in the Amendment which immediately follows in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp). I think very definitely that if an Act of Parliament is passed either here, in India or anywhere else, taking people's property, that property ought to be paid for. That is a simple and definite principle, and I gather that even the most enthusiastic members of the party opposite, having regard to the ever-increasing possessions of the people of this country, do not now look upon "Socialism in our time" as Socialism without compensation, although there are certain contradictions in terms. In the Bill as it stood there was a limitation that it only applied Sub-section (2) to land belonging to private persons and therefore by implication, if the land belonged to any kind of corporate body—no doubt the learned Attorney-General will put us right if we are wrong in our interpretation—they would not be entitled to any compensation. That seems to me an extraordinary point of view that the Government were going to protect the rights of a private individual, because the Clause says:

"for public purposes of land belonging to private persons.
The Amendment does not say "private persons" but "any person." I believe I am correct that unless there are words to the contrary in an Act of Parliament the word "person" include company and bodies of any kind.

Mr. MOLSON: My hon. Friend will see that I have an Amendment to Clause 280 which exactly covers that point and interprets "person" as including a company.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I had not seen that Amendment, but I believe that without a further Amendment the word "person," actually includes all bodies that may be owners of anything. I welcome the Amendment of the hon. Member and hope it will be carried having regard to the careful consideration which the Front Bench very properly gives to Amendments that come from the quarter to which I have referred as the Nabobs of India.

8.16 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member who moved this Amendment has referred the Committee to the recommendations in paragraph 369 of the report of the Joint Select Committee. Undoubtedly the Joint Select Committee realised that there were considerable difficulties in the way of drafting a Clause which would effect this most laudable object. Most of us, without prejudice to the hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite, share the view that no property ought to be taken except upon proper compensation being paid. That, however, is a statement which it is more easy to make than to apply to every conceivable set of facts. For instance, when this House takes a considerable portion of a person's income or a person's estate after his death, it is not easy to apply the principle that no property should be taken except upon proper compensation being paid. The property is taken and compensation is not paid. I only mention that to show how easy it is to make a general statement that property ought not to be taken without compensation and how difficult it may be to apply it to a particular legislative proposal by way of taxation. I can assure the Committee that most anxious and sincere attention has been given to the proposals contained in paragraph 369 of the Joint
Select Committee's report with a view to carrying out, at any rate the spirit, if not the letter of their recommendations. It is, however, obvious to anybody who has tried to tackle the task of drafting a suitable provision that almost at every turn you come up against some difficulty. It is only when you have exhausted every idea that you can put into words that you really come to the conclusion, as the Government have come, that you cannot really do all that the Joint Select Committee contemplated.
Let me take the question as to the nature of the property that was to be the subject of this provision. The Joint Select Committee undoubtedly envisaged all property. They used the word "property." My hon. Friend has rightly said that the Clause as drawn deals only with land—what in this country we call real property, and, as it includes immovable property, it includes buildings on the land. The Clause, in the form in which it is drawn, leaves out what we call personal property, which would include stocks and shares, securities and movables. When we come to a proposal to include movables which are included in personal property, we are up against the difficulty which I mentioned just now, that it is no good legislating in such a way as to make it illegal to impose taxation upon people who have personal property. It is possible to legislate against the State taking immovable property without compensation, but it is practically impossible—I think quite impossible—to devise words which will prevent them taking personal property without compensation unless we do that which is absurd, namely, make it illegal to tax people and even to impose penal taxation, which is the character of a great deal of taxation in this country as anyone familiar with the Income Tax laws will agree.
Therefore, we have to put in rather more limited words if we are to extend the Clause so as to make it cover something else than immovable property, that is, land. I am prepared to consider on behalf of the Government putting in some additional words. I cannot go as far as my hon. Friend proposes when he would put in personal property simpliciter, but I can go as far as to say that I will gladly consider whether some such words as these cannot be nut in after the word
"land" in line 34—"or any industrial or commercial undertaking." That will have the effect of making it illegal to take the whole undertaking of a person by way of confiscation. I rather think at the moment that that will not prevent any legislation by way of taxation, but it would prevent this rather ridiculous result: the Government might take a piece of land with a building on it for some public purpose and under the Clause as it is drawn, they would have to compensate the owner of the land and the owner of the building, but not the man who is carrying on an industrial or commercial undertaking upon those premises. That would be an absurd result, and it is not in conformity with the views expressed by the Joint Select Committee in paragraph 369.
I do not propose to put the words I suggest in the Bill to-day because they are not on the Order Paper. They are words which, I think, may properly go in, and I will take care that words to that effect are added. The word to which I should personally attach a great deal of importance is "undertaking," because it refers to something which is identifiable, and it does not run up against the difficulty that I have mentioned of taking money or personal property except by taxation. For instance, it would cover, I think, a proposal to take a fleet of steamboats, an undertaking which somebody was carrying on in the way of commerce or industry. That is as far as I feel able to go in connection with that objection.
The next objection which my hon. Friend put was that the Clause as drawn deals only with the property of private persons. I am perfectly prepared to agree on that point. There are two Amendments on the Paper which propose to insert words to make it plain that companies are included as well as persons as owners of property. I am not sure whether "companies" is quite the proper word. I think my hon. Friend suggested "a body or a company." I do not much like "a body," and I do not know that it may not be necessary to say "incorporated company," but I will take care to put in words to make it plain that legal persons are intended as well as natural persons. That will meet my hon. Friend's second, point. The third objection is that there is no protection in the
Clause against taking property except "for public purposes." I should have been very glad if the words "for public purposes" could have been left out, and my first impression was that they could safely be omitted, but then we are brought face to face with this difficulty. Suppose under a writ of execution to enforce a judgment in an action between A and B, they came along and took a man's property to satisfy the judgment. That could not be taking "for public purposes," but if we left out the words "for public purposes" the Clause as drawn would make it illegal to take a man's property in satisfaction of a judgment unless he were compensated for it, and that is nonsense. That is the sole reason why the words "for public purposes" are in. There was no intention in any way of limiting the operation of the Clause. It might in theory have a little limiting effect, but in practice I do not think one could contemplate any legislation of the character my hon. Friend envisaged, namely, taking a person's or a company's property for the purpose of handing it over to some other person. In theory it is possible, but in practice I should not think any Legislature would do it.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: If that be the only difficulty about the words "for public purposes," would it not be possible to put in a proviso which would cover taxation or a judgment under a writ?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It must not be supposed that the cases which I have given are exhaustive. I have mentioned two difficult cases, and I could mention others. In this country we have lately been familiar with legislation which takes slum property upon giving practically no compensation, or in some cases no compensation at all, to the owners. I do not go into the question of whether that is good legislation or not, some of us on this side have views which are not the views of everybody on that subject, and I am not going to say a word about that question. I only mention it as an illustration of legislation which involves the taking of property without compensation. I do not want to suggest that the examples I have given are exhaustive. When my hon. Friend says. "Put in a proviso to except taxation and to except judgments"—

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: My right hon. and learned Friend will realise the difficulty of leaving the Clause as it is, because there is undoubtedly a danger.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: One can only deal with this thing, so to speak, in detail. One cannot take the Clause and say that it does not do all that one would like it to do. If that were my hon. Friend's criticism I should not part company with him. I should like to see more done by the Clause. I should like to see legislation in this country that would prevent confiscation without compensation, but there are some things we cannot do. Language cannot be designed to prevent that sort of legislation, quite apart from the fact that it is open to Parliament to do anything. That is the reason why we must retain these words "for public purposes." The next objection, and the last, that was taken was that there is no provision for the assessment of compensation by an independent authority. The reason for that, which I recognise to be a departure from the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee, is that in some cases legislation, such as the Land Acquisition Act in India, provides for assessment of compensation otherwise than by an independent authority. For instance, it provides for assessment by a revenue official. Ice, is true that the assessment made by him is subject to confirmation by a district judge, but still the assessment is made by a revenue official. In general, I have no doubt that Parliament would provide for a measure of compensation or a principle of compensation that would almost of necessity leave the compensation to be fixed by some tribunal either appointed for the express purpose or already in existence but if only for the reason that there are existing Acts of Parliament which provide for the assessment of compensation for taking certain portions of property otherwise than by an independent tribunal I cannot—

Mr. MOLSON: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman read Subsection (4) which says:
Nothing in this Section shall affect the provisions of any law in force at the time of the passing of this Act.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: Oh, yes, I recognise that, and I had not forgotten it. Perhaps I ought to have
elaborated what I was saying. What I intended my hon. Friend to understand is that just as there is existing legislation that is necessary to deal with the matter covered by the legislation, so there might have to be legislation of the same sort in connection, for instance, with tenancy legislation. My hon. Friend opposite will know much better than I do that the regulation of the rights of landlords and tenants involving rights in property and in land is a very important subject of legislation; and it would be impossible to put words into this Clause which would interfere with the proper freedom of the Legislature in dealing with matters of that sort, very likely on the same lines as in the Land Acquisition Act.
I have told the Committee that I am prepared to meet my hon. Friends to a certain extent about personal property; I will meet them altogether about private persons and companies; I am not able to meet them about "for public purposes"; and I am not able to meet them over the suggestion to put in a proviso that compensation shall be assessed by an independent authority. But I will do something which has not been suggested by either of my hon. Friends. I am prepared to undertake that there shall be inserted in the Instrument of Instructions a provision that Bills of an expropriatory character which the Governor-General or the Governor does not feel justified forthwith in disallowing on grounds of inequity should be reserved for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure. If a provision of that sort goes into the Instrument of Instructions the Governor-General will have the full power of exercising his general veto, and there will also be a direction that if he does not feel able to go as far as that, at any rate that he should reserve a Bill which is really of a confiscatory character for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure.
I hope that hon. Members who are anxious about this matter will think that the way in which I have met them is satisfactory, having regard to all the circumstances. I do not think that we should attempt to place fetters upon the Indian Legislatures beyond what is reasonably necessary to prevent confiscation without compensation. We must trust to some extent to the good sense
and the public spirit of the Legislatures, in the belief that they will do things as we, with our great experience—as we think—and our position in this country, try to do them. The more you try to tie up the Legislatures the more difficulties you make both for yourself and for the Legislatures. What we can do is to try to make our general principles, which I think we shall have laid down if the Clause is amended as I suggest, as sound as possible. I hope that my hon. Friends will think that the Government are going as far as is reasonable, and that they will support the Government.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I do not propose to follow the Attorney-General in all the details in which he has discussed this matter, but I wish he would translate the very amiable generalisation with which he completed his speech into something more practical, and that he would present a firmer front to the voracious gentlemen who surround him on every hand. I see that the Attorney-General disagrees with my description, which appears to me to be an entirely adequate one. I have listened to almost the whole of the proceedings on the Bill, and the more I have listened the more staggered I have been at the number of interests which have had to be safeguarded. For over a fortnight we have been safeguarding this, that and the other interest, and in doing so we have added chain upon chain to the limbs of the future Indian Legislature until it seems that it will be almost impossible for it to move at all. Is there any justification for these things? I agree with the Attorney-General that we ought to be able to rely upon the good sense of the—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have no objection to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) making the speech which he is now making on the Amendment, but, if he raises general questions, rather wide general questions, it must be clearly understood that those questions cannot be raised again on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. JONES: Then I will reserve what I have to say until that Question is proposed.

8.38 p.m.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: I would like, in the first place, to express my gratitude to the Attorney-General for what he has done to try and meet us. He has gone a very long way. He will not be surprised if I now say that I am naturally a little disappointed that he has not been able to go a little further. I want to save the time of the Committee, so I will not go over the points on which he has been able to meet us, but I will deal specially with the assessment of compensation. I would remind him, although he probably needs no reminding, that it is clearly laid down in the recommendations in the Report of the Joint Select Committee that there should be compensation, which should be assessed by an independent tribunal. I realise the difficulties of the Attorney-General in setting up such a tribunal in. an Act of Parliament in a way that will work equitably in all cases, but surely it is not impossible to cover the matter a little more definitely than in the way he has suggested.
There appears to be very little harm in any of these Amendments. One of them proposes to leave compensation to be assessed by a tribunal approved by the Governor-General or the Governors, as the case may be, or, if it be not desired to put still further responsibilities upon the Governor-General or the Governors, it proposes that the assessment of such compensation shall be by an assessor or assessors from whose decision appeal will lie to a judicial court. I should have thought there could be no practical difficulty in accepting one or the other of the Amendments. There is very strong feeling in this country and in India that we must safeguard against the possibility of private property being expropriated without reasonable compensation when such a complete change is taking place.
I agree entirely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his hope and belief that the Legislatures in India will act as we do in this country and treat all subjects reasonably; we believe and hope that that will be the case, but that does not alter the fact that those who have property are entitled to ask that the recommendations which the Joint Select Committee so clearly laid down should be carried out. The majority of the members of the Joint Select Committee were strongly in favour of this position
being safeguarded. The Attorney-General has had much experience, and on almost any other subject he has had a great deal more experience than I have, but on this subject, if he had had as much experience as I have had, even of governments of India in the past, he would be quite as anxious about safeguarding property in India as I am, in order to see that it shall be secured in every possible way against any action which might be taken.
I have a very vivid recollection of property which was acquired for public purposes—so-called public purposes—some 18 years ago in India. It meant the removal of a large portion of land. It may interest the Committee to know that a comparatively flourishing business had to disappear because of the acquisition of that property, and that there was very insufficient and poor compensation. I saw the same land when I visited India some months ago, and nothing whatever bad been done to it in the 18 years. Governments are not always far-seeing in the action which they take, and I press upon the Committee the desirability of dealing with this matter, which is causing a very great deal of anxiety to a very large number of people. I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he has tried to do, but I ask him to say whether he can deal with the last Amendment in a little more definite way than he has suggested. It is cumbrous that the whole matter should be left to the Instruments of Instructions. I would prefer that compensation should be independently assessed and that if necessary there should be an appeal from the tribunal to a judicial court. As I understand the position, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not prepared to accept these Amendments now, but is prepared to bring in new Clauses on the Report stage. Am I right?

8.53 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes, my hon. Friend rightly understood me. I do not propose to accept these Amendments. In point of form, they would not be suitable, and, in point of substance, for the reasons I have mentioned, they go further than the Government are prepared to go. In answer to the suggestion that it would be more satisfactory to have an independent body to assess compensation,
perhaps I may say that even that provision would not be effective. If there is a mind to confiscate without compensation, all that the Legislature has to do is to say that compensation shall be assessed on the basis of paying the owner 1 per cent. of the market value at the final payment, and then where would you be with regard to your independent assessment for compensation? You cannot find a way out of this difficulty, and a veto on the part of the Governor-General is really the most effective proposal which has emerged.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: I am very grateful to the Attorney-General for the trouble he has taken in this matter, and we shall look forward with great interest and hope to the Clause that he will bring forward on Report.

Sir H. CROFT: May I say, on behalf of my hon. Friends, that they appreciate that the Attorney-General has gone a long way to meet their point, and I gather from what he has said that he is also going to consider something a little wider than an industrial or commercial undertaking.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I did not intend to suggest those words to the exclusion of any other words which go a little further than a commercial or industrial undertaking. I will consider that phrase, but I do not want to pledge myself to any particular form of words.

Sir H. CROFT: We attach great importance to this subject, but, in order to avoid a prolonged discussion, I will only say that I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he has already said.

8.47 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WALTER SMILES: I should like to call the attention of the Attorney-General to the position of tea companies in India. Many of those companies possess rights which were originally given to private individuals, at the time of the Indian Mutiny, or even before that, when the Naval Brigade went up to Assam. Those rights have been transferred to limited liability companies, some registered in Calcutta and some in London; and many of the grants to tea companies have been altered. There was one place in Assam where only Assamese—natives of the soil—were allowed to take up land, but which has
since been transferred to companies by the sale of their rights. There were other cases where companies had rice land attached to their estates, which they let out to their labourers at a cheaper rate than they could get elsewhere. Already I see it is proposed in the provincial councils that there should be some confiscation of those rice lands because they are let at cheaper rates than elsewhere, and I hope the Attorney-General will consider this point when drafting his new Clause.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If it is a question of compensation, it will be covered by the Clause as it is drafted.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. MOLSON: I desire to express my sincere gratitude to the Attorney-General for what he has said, and still more for his obvious desire to meet us in any reasonable request. I am sorry he has not been more sympathetic towards the proposal regarding assessment. He says it would be possible for the Legislature to provide that compensation should be paid at the rate of 1 per cent. of the market price, but I am not really afraid of that, because obviously such a Bill would be expropriatory on the face of it, and therefore the Instrument of Instructions would come in and a Bill of that kind would be reserved. But a separate point of which we are afraid is that, while the Bill on the face of it might not be expropriatory, nevertheless, because the assessment was not made by an independent body, the compensation paid might in fact be extremely inadequate. It would not be an undue interference with the liberty of a Legislature to adopt such measures as A thinks right and proper, to provide that the assessment on the basis laid down in the legislation should be arrived at by an independent body. I merely mention that point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: I beg to move, in page 161, line 37, to leave out Sub-section (3).
We feel that Sub-section (3) does away with all the value of Sub-sections (1) and (2). I was very much impressed by the appreciation which our point of view re
garding compensation received. We are not a confiscatory party; we accept Subsection (2). I was also impressed when the Attorney-General told us that we must trust the good sense and public spirit of the members of the Federal and Provincial Legislatures, and it is for that reason that we object to Sub-section (3). In my opinion this provision occurs so many times in the Bill that it makes a mockery of any pretence to Parliamentary government. We are told in Sub-section (1) that:
No person in British India shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.
We subscribe to that; we think it is unfair to take property by any other means. But when we are told that no law can be made without the previous sanction of the Governor-General we feel that that is simply putting the Governor-General in the position of a dictator. If Sub-section (1) and (2) have any value at all, it is that they give the Legislature powers to deal with the land question and the acquisition of land; but all that value is at once lost in Sub-section (3). Our point is a very simple one. We think that this is a vital question which ought to be left to the Legislatures, and that we ought not, while pretending to give them this power, to take it away from them in Sub-section (3).

8.53 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: It seems to me that in some respects this Sub-section goes further than the proposals of the Joint Select Committee. Although the Joint Select Committee said that ordinary property in land should be dealt with by such machinery, they made an exception in the case of the Permanent Settlement. That is a very complicated subject—much too complicated to discuss at this moment—and legislation dealing with it could only be passed if it had behind it an overwhelming body of public support. Therefore, in that case, the Joint Select Committee did not think it would be a good thing to impose the safeguard of previous sanction, but recommended that in such a case, as the Government could not escape responsibility, the legislation should be reserved for His Majesty's pleasure after it has been passed. If Sub-section (3) is intended, as I imagine it is, to cover that case, I suggest that it does not
incorporate the proposal of the joint select Committee

8.54 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The purpose of this Clause is undoubtedly to protect certain rights which exist, and, although it is in part covered by the observations I have already made, it is intended to give to the Governor-General the power to impose his sanction, so as to prevent any interference with such rights as those referred to in the paragraph, which the hon. Gentleman rightly said he did not want to discuss, in the Report of the Joint Select Committee. The paragraph dealing with the Permanent Settlement would in itself have to be the subject of considerable discussion if we were all to try to understand it properly, but the hon. Gentleman has quite rightly described the intention and purpose of the Clause. The Government take the view that it is a proper Clause, and that it is in accordance with the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee. Between those opposing points of view, I am afraid the Committee will have to choose.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman rather overlooked the point I put before him. This does not cover the intention, surely, of the Joint Select Committee on the point of the Permanent Settlement. They considered it on a different footing. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will glance rapidly through paragraph 372 of their Report he will see what they thought about it. They believed that the previous sanction of the Governor-General would not be necessary, and that it would be sufficient that sanction should be reserved for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure. That is not, as far as I understand, carried out in a Clause in this Bill.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: This Sub-section seems to be rather important. It cuts right across Sub-section (2), which gives power to the Indian Legislature to take over land if they pay compensation for it. Immediately after, in Sub-section (3), it says that they cannot do that unless they have the sanction of the Governor-General. It would have been far better to have left Sub-section (2) out altogether
than to have given that power and, immediately afterwards, provide for it to be avoided by another body set up for the purpose. It is important that that power should be put in. I do not know whether the Governor-General has special powers to deal with the legislature on all matters or only on particular matters, but I regard this question as being very important. As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend, we are not pressing for confiscation in this country or any other country, but supreme power should be in the hands of the governing body. If it should be decided to take over land, or any property, they should have the final word upon the matter. I hope that we shall vote against Sub-section (3) in order to show our discontent with this kind of legislation which gives so much power to one man.

8.58 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: With reference to what the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) has said, the Clause, as I understand it, is intended

to protect, in the legislative sphere, the Jagirdars, who are dealt with in the administrative sphere in Clause 281. There is a reference in the Instruments of Instructions, in paragraph 18, by which the Governor is instructed to reserve, but not to assent to,
any Bill which would alter the character of the Permanent Settlement.
That is, I think, in accordance with the proposal contained in the Report of the Joint Select Committee, but the matter will be further looked into. It is again apparently a question, so I am informed, of finding words which leave out the Permanent Settlement and give proper protection to the Jagirdars and so on. But the matter will be further looked into with a view to seeing that, as far as possible, the Clause is in conformity with the views of the Joint Select Committee.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 189; Noes, 32.

Division No. 149.]
AYES
[9.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Elmley, Viscount
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Ker, J. Campbell


Assheton, Ralph
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Atholl, Duchess of
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)
Knox, Sir Alfred


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Law, Sir Alfred


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Lewis, Oswald


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Liddall, Walter S.


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Fleming, Edward Lascelies
Liewellin, Major John J.


Blindell, James
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Bossom, A. C.
Fox, Sir Gifford
Loder, Captain J. de Vera


Boulton, W. W.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Loftus, Pierce C.


Bracken, Brendan
Goff, Sir Park
Mabane, William


Braithwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Gower, Sir Robert
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Broadbent, Colonel John
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Grimston, R. V.
Magnay, Thomas


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Burnett, John George
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hacking, Rt. Hon, Douglas H.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Cassels, James Dale
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hartland, George A.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Christie, James Archibald
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Milne, Charles


Clarry, Reginald George
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cook, Thomas A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Cooke, Douglas
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Cooper, A. Duff
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hornby, Frank
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Horobin, Ian M.
Munro, Patrick


Croom. Johnson, R. P.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hudson. Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Nicholson. Godfrey (Morpeth)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Nunn, William


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Dickie, John P.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Palmer. Francis Noel


Donner, P. W.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Patrick, Colin M.


Drewe, Cedric
Jamieson, Douglas
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Duggan, Hubert John
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Potter, John


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Radford, E. A.


Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Railway, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K-dine, C.)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Smithers, Sir Waldron
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Remer. John R.
Somervell, Sir Donald
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Ropner, Colonel.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Soper, Richard
Weymouth, Viscount


Ross, Ronald D.
Spens, William Patrick
White, Henry Graham


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Runge, Norah Cecil
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Strauss, Edward A.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Wise, Alfred R.


Salmon, Sir Isidore
Sutcliffe, Harold
Womersley, Sir Walter


Salt, Edward W.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).
Thorp, Linton Theodore



Selley, Harry R.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Tree, Ronald
Sir George Penny and Major George Davies.


NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Granted, David Reel (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Owen, Major Goronwy


Buchanan, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Thorne, William James


Cove, William G.
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Leonard, William
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon, Josiah


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McGovern, John
Mr. D. Graham and Mr. John.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mainwaring, William Henry

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: We want to register a very strong objection to the weakness which the Government have shown in face of the clamant requests of hon. Members for further concessions in the direction of safeguards. It is our view, as I have said more than once, that in the last fortnight we have been piling safeguard upon safeguard, and most of those safeguards have been in the direction of protecting private interests in one way or another. In this particular case we are dealing with a restricted area and a concession has been granted by the Government which in our judgment is very largely unnecessary. I will explain why I think this extra concession is unnecessary. The Governor-General is in possession of very ample powers of veto. If a, Bill is brought forward by the Government in respect of certain matters with which the Governor-General disagrees he may veto it. If the, Bill in the course of its progress through the Legislature is amended in a certain way the Governor-General may insist that the Amendment be withdrawn. If the Bill is carried and the Governor
General still objects he may withhold his assent. These are very ample powers
This evening we are told that the Government are prepared to introduce into the Instrument of Instructions a new proviso, a new safeguard. If a Bill dealing with the expropriation of land is introduced containing terms with which the Governor-General does not agree, he can reserve the Bill for the signification of His Majesty in regard to the matter. We are discussing the question of what may be the attitude of a future Federal government or a Provincial government on the question of land ownership. I do not anticipate that during the next 30 or 40 years there will be anything approaching a revolutionary government in the Provinces or in the Centre in India, because the Government are taking good care that property interests are more than amply represented in both those bodies. But suppose that at some future time 30 or 40 years hence a government, say, of Socialist tendencies were elected for a Province or the Centre, or let us assume the election of a Communist Government by the Indian people. A Communist Government on being elected would have the authority of the people behind it and be entitled to carry out the mandate received from the people. I am not interested in the progress of Communism but I am interested in the progress of
Socialism. Let me assume that a Socialist majority is elected by some hazard or chance—it would have to be that—and they deem it necessary in the public interests that the land should be nationalised. In this country that may happen within a very short time, for all we know. So long as the government elected has the authority of the people for the purpose, what right have we to say to the people of India that they shall not have their will? What right have we to say to the Indian people that they shall not do this, that or the other? For Heaven's sake let us have done with this hypocrisy. If we are not giving self-government, let us say so. If we are giving self-government, let us give it frankly and freely.
I agree with what was said by the learned Attorney-General that if you are going to tie up the Indian Legislatures both Provincial and Central by these innumerable safeguards, if you erect barriers around them, you are bound in the end to create greater difficulties in administration in India, and you will do a much bigger and much more dangerous thing. If you make the people think that you have introduced into the Constitution barriers that cannot be moved away, safeguards that they cannot get over, you will develop in India, perhaps without desiring it, an unconstitutional or an anti-constitutional spirit which right hon. and hon. Members opposite as well as ourselves would deeply deplore. The only way to safeguard the constitutional spirit in any country is to give the people the assurance that they can get what they desire constitutionally.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman is now developing a much wider argument than this Clause will bear.

Mr. JONES: With respect, may I put my proposition once again? In Subsection (3) we are going to reserve to the Governor-General the right to say that if a, Central or Provincial Parliament carries a Bill for nationalising land he can if he likes withhold his assent. That is a, power which he ought not to possess. The consequence of giving that power is to develop in the minds of the electors of India the feeling that however constitutionally they may move, however amply they may exercise their constitutional right of the vote,
they are not in the long run to be the arbiters of their own fate, the person who determines whether the thing is good or bad for India is the Governor-General. The effect of putting the Governor-General in that position may he one which hon. Members perhaps will not like. You will make the representative of His Majesty in India appear to be the bulwark against the progress of the Indian people. You are doing a dangerous thing, and for my part I shall have no share or lot in this effort to prevent the people of India having a full expression of their desire for progress along the lines which seem best to them. What right have we to say to the Indian people 40 years hence that they must not nationalise the land? Who are we to speak in their name? Who are we to put impediments in the way of their progress? What right have we to speak in this way? If we are going to give them self-government let us give it, but if not then drop this hypocritical attitude and say that we cannot give it because we distrust them, it is too great a power to give. In that case let us have done with this hypocrisy, and keep them in leading strings as we have in the past.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I should like to confirm what my hon. Friend has said. The first paragraph of this Clause says that
No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.
That is all right; we understand that. The law is represented by the elected representatives of the people and, therefore, nobody is to be deprived of their property unless the elected reresentatives say so. But when the Clause goes on to say that the law expressed by the people may be wrong, that there must be a proviso to prevent anything like that happening, and the Governor-General is to decide whether the law is right or wrong. When we passed Clause 12 I assumed that we had given all the comprehensive powers which the Governor-General would require, but in this Clause we are giving him further special powers. India has not the same democratic institutions we have in this country, but we are trying to lead them in that direction. We have given certain powers to the Indian people, the power to vote, although greater powers are being given to certain sections of the
Indian people than they ought to possess, and we are looking forward later on to a time when the Indian people will be able to assert themselves a little more rapidly than they are at the present. When that time comes, they may want to take over land and pay compensation for it. We agree with that, and cannot understand why the Bill should contain these special powers to the Governor-General to assert these rights. We should be lacking in our duty to our principles if we allowed the Clause to pass without a Division.

9.21 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) in his forcible speech has raised a number of wide issues into which I hope he will pardon me if I do not follow him. He has raised the whole issue of the various safeguards throughout the Bill. I will confine myself to the provisions of the Clause. The hon. Member's speech was largely directed to Sub-section (3). May I say on the broad question, that if you read the Clause as a whole it is obviously directed against confiscation. I think that we are all agreed in repudiating confiscation; we agree that if property is taken for public purposes compensation should be paid. The Clause is not inserted because we distrust the new Indian legislatures, the safeguards are not put in from motives of distrust, but in order to prevent apprehension, possibly ill-founded, in certain minds as to the effects of this great change. We believe that ordinary principles of law will be observed, but we have put these safeguards in the Bill to prevent apprehensions and misgivings arising which themselves may do great harm to the new constitution. I hope hon. Members will not feel that I am discourteous in dealing briefly with the points they have raised, and that we may get the Clause without a Division.

9.23 p.m

Mr. McGOVERN: It is interesting to hear that this Clause is inserted to prevent anything in the nature of confiscation of land in India. Some of us have another name for it, the restoration of the land to the people of India, from a small and select class who have in the past robbed the people of India of their inheritance. I am glad that the hon.
Member for Caerphilly has stated his opposition to the Clause. He says that if we are giving a measure of self-government to India, if we give them the right to decide whether they are going to take over any form of property for the communal use of the people of India, they should be able to decide the terms upon which such property is taken over. One of the most obnoxious things in the Bill is the power given to the Governor-General to say that the community through its representatives—although they may represent only a section of the property owners—are to be debarred from taking land in India. I am amazed to hear that the Opposition agrees to the payment of compensation for land. In the early days of the Labour movement I was taught to regard all rent for land as robbery, and that no compensation should be paid for land taken for the benefit of the community. Therefore, I say that, as with other doctrines, the Labour party is changing more and more as time goes on, so that soon there will be no distinction between them and the Tory Government.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I hardly think that the internal politics of the Labour party can be raised on this Amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN: I only wanted to refer to that for the purpose of pointing out that the words from the Labour benches in connection with their objections to the Bill raised another point of view, that they are not Labour, for Socialists believe that a community decides things for itself. If they have the backing of the community, the new Indian Government can even confiscate without compensation. So far as we are concerned, we do not believe in compensation for landlords. We believe in the taking over of land and the whole of the industrial undertakings and products of India by the people, the same as we do here, by the will of the people, using them for the common good of all. I hope that India, in spite of all these restrictions, will be able in time to make manifest their opinions on these lines.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on this Clause.

Mr. McGOVERN: I cannot see why it does not arise. I say that this Clause restricts the power of the people of India
and that the people have a right to make known their ideas. I look to the people of India to take power into their own hands, not only taking over from the landlords but brushing aside Governors and even the National Government.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not in order.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 31.

Division No.150.]
AYES.
[9.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Albery, Irving James
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Patrick, Colin M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Hartland, George A.
Penny, Sir George


Aske, Sir Robert William
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Petherick, M.


Assheton, Ralph
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Atholl, Duchess of
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Potter, John


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Herbert, Major J. A.(Monmouth)
Radford, E. A.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Hope, Capt. Hon. A.O. J. (Aston)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Hornby, Frank
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Horobin, Ian M.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Bossom, A. C.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Boulton, W. W.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Bracken, Brendan
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Remer, John R


Braithwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Ropner, Colonel L.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Broadbent, Colonal John
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Brown, Col. D. C.(N'th'I'd., Hexham)
James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks. Newb'y)
Jamleson, Douglas
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Burnett, John George
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Butler, Richard Austen
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Salt, Edward W.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)


Cassels, James Dale
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Selley, Harry R.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Shaw, Helen B.(Lanark, Bothwell)


Christie, James Archibald
Ker, J. Campbell
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Shepperson. Sir Ernest W.


Cook, Thomas A.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith, Louis W.(Sheffield, Haliam)


Cooke, Douglas
Law, Sir Alfred
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine. C.)


Cooper, A. Duff
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lewis, Oswald
Somervell, Sir Donald


Crooke, J. Smedley
Liddall. Walter S.
Soper, Richard


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Spens. William Patrick


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Liewellin, Major John J
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. C. C. C.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Stevenson, James


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Strauss, Edward A


Dickie. John P
Loftus, Pierce C
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Donner, P. W.
Mabane. William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F


Drewe, Cedric
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Duggan, Hubert John
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Thorp, Linton Theodora


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K.(B'wick-on-T.)


Elmley, Viscount
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Magnay, Thomas
Tree, Ronald


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Walfsend)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Fermoy, Lord
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wayland, Sir William A


Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst
Milne, Charles
Weymouth, Viscount


Fleming, Edward Lascelies
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)
White, Henry Graham


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Williams, Herbert G.(Croydon, S.)


Fox. Sir Gilford
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Wills, Wilfrid D


Goff, Sir Park
Moreing, Adrian C
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold(Hertf'd)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George


Gower, Sir Robert
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Wise, Alfred R.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Munro, Patrick
Womersley, Sir Waller


Grimston, R. V.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)



Guest, Capt Rt. Hon. F. E.
Nunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Orr Ewing, I. L
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and Mr. Blindell.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Owen, Major Goronwy



NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Buchanan, George
Daggar, George


Banfield, John William
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)


Batey, Joseph
Cove, William G
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Edwards, Charles
Lanibury, Rt. Hon. George
Milner, Major James


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Lawion, John James
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Graham, D.M.(Lanark, Hamilton)
Leonard, William
Thorne, William James


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Logan, David Gilbert
Tinker, John Joseph


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
MeEntee, Valentine L.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Griffiths, George A.(Yorks. W. Riding)
McGovern, John
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Grundy, Thomas W
Mainwaring, William Henry



Jones, Morgan(Caerphilly)
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Paling

CLAUSE 281.—(Protection of rights of Jagirdars, Inamdars, etc.)

9.35 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I beg to move, in page 162, line 18, at the end, to insert:
(2) No pension granted or customarily payable on political considerations shall be discontinued save on an order of the Governor-General fin the exercise of his individual judgment or, as the case may be, of the Governor in the exercise of his individual judgment, and any sum required for the payment of any such pension shall be charged on the revenues of the Federation or, as the case may be, the Province.
This is really a drafting Amendment. It was pointed out to us that the grants to which the Clause refers are often in the nature of pensions.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: There is a very small point I want to raise. I am very interested to see in the Amendment the words:
No pension granted or customarily payable on political considerations.
That is rather a new reason for paying pensions. Would the Secretary of State explain it?

Sir S. HOARE: The kinds of grants referred to here are grants given, let us say, after a campaign. When we use the words quoted we do not use them in the party sense, but refer to the case of a grant to a family that did good service to the Empire in the Afghan War or some previous war, and that kind of thing.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 282.—(High Commissioner for India.)

9.37 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to move, in page 162, line 25, to leave out "exercising his individual judgment."
What do these words mean? I take it that the High Commissioner for India is to be appointed for duty in the United Kingdom and the power of appointment
is to be exercised by the Governor-General. That brings us back to the old point: Is the Governor-General to have sole control of everything that happens in India or is he to have the advice of any body of people in India as to who the High Commissioner shall be?

9.38 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: The High Commissioner will have two kinds of duties, one for the Federal Government and the Provincial Governments in India, and the other for the Governor-General acting in his discretion for the reserved departments and for the sphere of government that does not come within the Federal Government of India. As the High Comissioner will have to act in those two capacities it was thought that the proper method of action was that it should be the individual judgment of the Governor-General, namely, that the initiative in suggesting names will be with the ministers, but that the final word should be with the Governor-General.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

9.39 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: An Amendment in my name has not been selected, but the Secretary of State has completely established the case for it, because he has said that the High Commissioner has to act in a double capacity, and I want to ask him about that. The Clause says that the High Commissioner "shall perform on behalf of the Federation" certain reserve and transferred functions
such functions in connection with the business of the Federation, and in particular in relation to the making of contracts, as the Governor-General may from time to time direct.
When we use the words "Governor-General" without any qualification "in his discretion or in the exercise of his individual judgment," that means, I presume, as the Governor-General, as advised by his ministers, may direct? Therefore, we have the extraordinary
situation that though the High Commissioner is performing functions in respect of reserve services, where the ministers have no right to tender advice at all, nevertheless when the High Commissioner is doing that he shall act as the Governor-General acting on the advice of his ministers, may direct him.

Sir S. HOARE: It is not so.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The Secretary of State says it is not so. The Governor-General comes in because he can refuse the advice of his advisers. But there are in the Clause the words "as the Governor-General may from time to time direct." So far as I am aware, wherever in the Bill either the Governor-General or the Governor directs, and there are no qualifying words" in his discretion or in the exercise of his individual judgment, "that means as the Governor-General or the Governors are advised by their ministers, and the Governor-General must take their advice. Therefore, when the Secretary of State says that it is not so, I am very glad, because it means that the Secretary of State and I are in agreement on this, namely, that when the High Commissioner is performing a function in respect of reserve services the High Commissioner has to take the instructions of the Governor-General acting in his discretion. If that is the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation I shall be glad if he will tell me what other words in the Bill make that clear, and if there are no other words will he agree on Report to include such words.

Sir S. HOARE: I am informed that it is quite clear in the Bill, but I will look further into the point.
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 283 and 284 ordered to stand part of the Bill

CLAUSE 285.—(Procedure as respects proposals for amendment of certain provisions of Acts and Orders in Council.)

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee)—in page 163, line 16, at the beginning to insert:
(1) A Provincial Legislature shall have the power to make a law amending the provisions of this Act for the purpose of
extending the franchise to every person of the age of twenty-one years and upwards upon the sole basis of the residential qualification provided in this Act, and if at the expiration of ten years after the commencement of Part III of this Act a Provincial Legislature has failed to make such a law His Majesty in Council may make provision accordingly—

should be moved as a new Clause.

9.45 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I beg to move, in page 163, line 19, after "resolution," to insert:
by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of each Chamber.
It seems to us that this is a matter of great importance because the Clause might be used to upset the communal award or to abolish or create, as the case might be, a second chamber. After all the time and trouble which has been taken in establishing the communal award and the amount of agreement that has. been arrived at, we think that no change should be mooted with regard to that subject or such questions as the constitution of a legislature without a decisive majority in each Chamber. The Committee will realise the vital importance of some such protection and I hope that the Secretary of State will accept the Amendment as an obvious precaution.

9.46 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will not press this Amendment. This proposal is one on which we had a great deal of discussion during our deliberations in the Joint Select Committee and the Indian delegates rightly attached considerable importance to the procedure set out in the Clause. It is provided that, after a specified period, an Indian legislature should have a formal procedure under which its resolutions on the points set out in the Clause would have to he taken into account by the Imperial Parliament. Parliament is not tied in any way. All that would happen would be that resolutions sent to the Secretary of State under the procedure set out in the Clause would be taken into account. I attach importance to the safeguard that this procedure cannot come into operation for 10 years. I think it is very important that we should have as much stability as possible in the early years of these constitutional changes. I should have thought that with that safeguard,
this was on the whole a satisfactory kind of procedure, namely, that the legislature should be able to send forward its resolutions and that Parliament should have to take formal notice of them. As I say the hands of Parliament are not tied in any way. I think it would be a mistake to make any further restrictions upon a proposal which I regard as safe from the point of view of Parliament and which is obviously regarded as important both by the Indian delegates and I believe by all members of the Joint Select Committee because I do not think there was any difference upon this point.

9.50 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: With great respect, may I say that my right hon. Friend has not addressed himself to the argument of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). Here you are dealing with a constitution, a fundamental document on which all the liberties and safeguards—

Sir S. HOARE: It is limited to the points set out in the Clause.

Viscount WOLMER: But they are very important points. They are fundamental points on which there has been great contention and all we are asking is that there should not be any alteration of the constitution in those important respects without a two-thirds majority.

Sir S. HOARE: It is not that at all. It is simply a procedure for sending forward resolutions. It is not a question of alterations being made.

Viscount WOLMER: I am aware of that point. I have read the Clause. But we say that a proposal of that sort should not be entertained as carrying the endorsement of Indian opinion unless it has a two-thirds majority. That is surely a reasonable stipulation. I do not think that in any country in the world, except this, it is possible to alter the constitution by a bare majority.

Mr. LANSBURY: And this is the best of all.

Viscount WOLMER: But we have 700 years of political experience behind us and we are the only nation who have made Parliamentary Government a success—though we have not made quite such a great success of it as all that.I
apologise to the Committee for the aberration into which I was betrayed by the Leader of the Opposition. The Secretary of State says this is only a question of forwarding to the Imperial Parliament resolutions on which we shall be free to act. I doubt whether we shall be so free to act. We have had it dinned into as that Indian opinion will not accept this or that and that in these matters we ought to be guided by Indian opinion and if Parliament contained at that time a majority of Members of the political persuasion of hon. Members opposite, any chance vote which might come from any legislature in India would get the O.K. from my hon. and right hon. Friends opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] I think my hon. Friends know what I mean. We had a judicial decision on the expression a few week ago so that it may now be regarded as part of the King's English.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I hope not.

Viscount WOLMER: It is no answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth to say that the hands of this Parliament will be free. A resolution ought not to be regarded as expressing Indian opinion unless there is an overwhelming majority in favour of it. It is, surely, undesirable that these constitutional points should be raised on behalf of India by a bare majority. Remember what the situation is in the Provinces. In five Provinces there is a perpetual Hindu majority under this communal law. It is, I grant, a bare majority, nothing like a two-thirds majority, but it is perpetual. Is it right to say that the perpetual Hindu majority in those Provinces or a perpetual Mohammedan majority in other Provinces, is to have authority to demand, in the name of the whole Province, an alteration of the constitution which may benefit its own party or denomination? I submit that it would be wiser to lay down a figure in the Constitution Act which would make it impossible for such a demand to come before the Imperial Parliament unless with the consent of both parties and if we fixed a two-thirds majority the result would be that in nearly every Province there would have to be agreement between Moslems and Hindus on the matters referred to in the Clause.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Why?

Viscount WOLMER: I think the effect of carrying the Amendment would be that it would be impossible for the Hindu majority in any of those Provinces to force a change against Moslem public opinion, and it seems to me that it would be very undesirable that we should erect machinery in this Bill by which it would be possible for a perpetual majority in the elected Legislatures of India to speak in the name of the whole Province in regard to a fundamental alteration of the Constitution which might be very unfair to the minority. I do not want to put our successors in this Parliament in the position of having to stand up to a, demand of that sort, which would only be availing itself of the facilities offered by this Bill and might place the Imperial Parliament in the very difficult position of either having to betray the minority or to engage in a stand-up fight with the elected majority

9.56 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I am not quite as familiar with the provisions of this Bill as some hon. Members, but of all the Amendments that I have heard moved to it, I think this is the most objectionable. Before the two Chambers in India could pass a resolution and send it forward, they must have a two-thirds majority of the members of each Chamber, and here we are to-night, with not more than 220 of us out of 615 Members of the House of Commons, asked to vote in favour of an Amendment of that kind. It is preposterous. It means, if this Amendment were carried, that these two Chambers would never pass any resolution at all, at any time. I very much doubt whether you would get two-thirds of the Members of this Parliament to do that much. It requires more than 400, at any rate, to be in this House to represent two-thirds, and I guarantee that the vast majority of the provisions of this Constitution which we are debating have been carried with less than two-thirds of the Members of this House present.

Sir B. PETO: Supposing we were debating a great constitutional change at this moment, does the hon. Member say the attendance in this Chamber would not be very different from what it is now?

Mr. DAVIES: We are now passing, so we have been informed, the greatest constitutional Measure that has ever come
before the British Parliament, and we have been told authoritatively too that this Bill containing 451 Clauses will affect a greater number of people in any one country than have ever been affected by any Act of Parliament before. I would mention another point. A provision of this kind is put very often into municipal Acts of Parliament, but even then, when they call for a two-thirds majority, they do not say that they require a two-thirds majority of the members of the authority. They say "a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting," which is quite a different thing. I do not think I have ever seen more than about 520 Members of this House here at any one time, whatever the subject under discussion may have been, and—

Sir H. CROFT: If it would save time and the Secretary of State would accept such an Amendment, it would be agreeable to me.

Mr. DAVIES: The Secretary of State at any rate knows what he is doing in this matter. He knows that if this Amendment were carried, no resolution would be passed at any time by either of the Chambers in India. My last point is this: It seems to me that the Amendment is deliberately designed to stultify the Chambers in India from passing any resolution at all, and we are delighted indeed that the Secretary of State has declined to accept it.

Sir H. CROFT: I think it is not appreciated that we are simply aiming to see that the Constitution itself shall not be changed unless there is this great feeling in the two Chambers in favour of the change.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: This is not a question affecting the Constitution directly. The Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) kept on saying that the Constitution could be changed by a two-thirds majority, but there is no question of changing the Constitution. First of all, they have to wait 10 years, and, having done that, they can pass certain resolutions dealing with specific points, such as the composition of the Chambers and so on, and bring those Resolutions to the notice of the British House of Commons. But the Noble Lord does not even want them to speak to us and tries
to prevent them approaching the Imperial Parliament or the King-Emperor. The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Donner) sitting next to him said last night that I looked upon India with a Western view. I certainly look upon India from a British point of view whereas the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot, looks at it from a Prussian

point of view, and although the Noble Lord might be successful in the administration of Herr Hitler, I do not think his views should carry any weight with us on this particular point

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 29; Noes, 196.

Division No. 151.]
AYES.
[10.3 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)
Renter, John R.


Atholl, Duchess of
Fleming, Edward Lascelies
Todd, Lt. Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Waylaid, Sir William A.


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hartington, Marquess of
Wise, Alfred R.


Burnett, John George
Knox, Sir Alfred
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.



Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Nunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Donner, P. W.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Mr. Thorp and Mr. Lennox-Boyd.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Reid, David D. (County Down)



NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Goff, Sir Park
Mabane, William


Albery, Irving James
Gower, Sir Robert
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C, G. (Partick)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Graham, D. M.(Lanark, Hamilton)
MacDonald, Malcolm(Bassetlaw)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.


Assheton, Ralph
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
McGovern, John


Banfield, John William
Griffiths, George A.(Yorks. W. Riding)
McKie, John Hamilton


Batey, Joseph
Grimston, R. V.
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Beaumont, Hn, R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Grundy, Thomas W.
McLean, Dr. W. H.(Tradeston)


Bevan, Stuart James(Holborn)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F, E,
Magnay, Thomas


Bossom, A. C.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mainwaring, William Henry


Boulton, W. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Bourne, Capt. Robert Croft
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R,


Braithwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Haslam, Henry(Horncastle)
Mason, David M.(Edinburgh, E.)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Mason, Col. Glyn K.(Croydon, N.)


Brown, Cot. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Butler, Richard Austen
Heneage, Lieut,-Colonel Arthur P
Milne, Charles


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Herbert, Major J. A.(Monmouth)
Milner, Major James


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Christie, James Archibald
Hornby, Frank
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Horobin, Ian M.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Horsbrugh, Florence
Morris-Jones, Or J. H. (Denbigh)


Colman. N. C. D.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Cook, Thomas A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Munro, Patrick


Cooke, Douglas
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Or[...] Ewing, I. L.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Paling, Wilfred


Daggar, George
Jamleson, Douglas
Palmer, Francis Noel


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Patrick, Colin M.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
John, William
Peaks, Osbert


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Penny, Sir George


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Petherick, M.


Denman, Hon. R. D,
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Dickie, John P.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Potter, John


Drew, Cedric
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Radford, E. A.


Duggan, Hubert John
Ker, J, Campbell
Ramsay, Alexander(W. Bromwich)


Edwards, Charles
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Law, Sir Alfred
Rathbone, Eleanor


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lawson, John James
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Lewis, Oswald
Reid, William Allan(Derby)


Evans, Capt. Ernest(Welsh Univ.)
Liddall, Walter S.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Rose Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Fermoy, Lord
Little, Graham-,Sir Ernest
Rung, North Cecil


Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst
Liewellin, Major John J.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Logan,m David Gilbert
Salt, Edward W.


Gluckstein, Louie Halle
Lunn, William
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)


Selley, Harry R.
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Strauss, Edward A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Strickland, Captain W. F,
Weymouth, Viscount


Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F,
White, Henry Graham


Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Sutcliffe, Harold
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine. C.)
Thompson, Sir Luke
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Tinker, John Joseph
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Smithers, Sir Waldron
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Somervell, Sir Donald
Tree, Ronald
Womersley, Sir Walter


Soper, Richard
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Spent, William Patrick
Tufnell, Lieut-Commander R. L.



Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Stevenson, James
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Lieut-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
and Mr. Blindell.


Question put, and agreed to.

10.11 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I beg to move, in page 164, line 13, at the end, to insert:
or to the method of choosing members of a Provincial Legislature.
It was always intended that this provision should be included with the others, and I move the Amendment now to make the position quite clear. The changes would cover both the Provinces and the Federation.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 164, line 20, after "purpose," insert "by them or."—[Sir S. Hoare.]

10.12 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 165, line 8, after "shall," to insert
" unless it appears to him that the proposed Amendment is of a minor or drafting nature.
This is a small Amendment in that part of this Clause which provides that if amendments are made there shall be consultation between the Secretary of State and the Governments and Legislatures in India, and it is to provide that such consultation shall not be necessary where the proposed Amendment is of a minor or drafting nature.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

10.13 p.m.

Sir A. KNOX: The Amendment down in my name and home of my hon. Friends —in page 163, line 36, after "minority," to insert "or the due discharge of any of his special responsibilities—has not been selected, but I would like to ask the Secretary of State if he could possibly consider the insertion of these words. The Section to which we refer lays it down that the Governor-General or the Governor, as the case may be, in forward-
ing any resolution passed by a Legislative Assembly, shall give his own opinion as to safeguarding minorities. The safeguarding of minorities is one of his special responsibilities. He has got also other important special responsibilities to safeguard, such as law and order. We ask that law and order should be inserted.

10.14 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see on further examination that no question about law and order can come in in connection with this procedure. This procedure is only in connection with questions like the size of the Chamber and franchise, and it is on that account that we thought that the only special responsibilities which are likely to be involved are responsibilities to do with minorities. I will look into the question further, and if any other responsibilities were involved, will make it clearer on the Report stage.

CLAUSE 286.—(Orders in Council.)

Motion made, and Question proposed,"That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir B. PETO: On a point of Order. Is there not an Amendment down in the name of the Secretary of State—in page 165, line 25, at the end, to insert:
either in the form of the draft or with such amendments as may have been agreed to by resolutions of both Houses.

The CHAIRMAN: It is not moved.

CLAUSE 287.—(Elections may be held in advance of dates fixed for commencement of Parts II and III of Act.)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Sir S. HOARE: I have put down two alternative new Clauses to this Clause and the next. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will negative this and the next Clause and consider the two proposed Clauses when we consider the new Clauses.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Do the proposed new Clauses cover the same matters as these two Clauses?

Sir S. HOARE: I am wrong in saying there are two new Clauses. It is only one Clause, and it covers the same objects in a rather simpler and more general manner than the two Clauses in the Bill.

Question put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 288.—(Temporary financial provisions.)

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 289.—(Interpretation.)

10.17 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 168, line 31, to leave out from "defined" to the end of line 33, and to insert
for the purposes of the enactments relating to Indian income tax.
This Clause is the definition Clause in which a number of matters are dealt with, and there are a number of Amendments down in the name of my right hon. Friend. They are all of a drafting character and raise highly technical points. Some of them are made necessary by provisions which have been introduced into the Bill as we have gone through it, and words have been introduced which make further interpretation necessary. I am in the hands of the Committee as to explaining any of them, but, unless the Committee indicate otherwise, it might be convenient to pass the Amendments formally.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 168, leave out lines 34 and 35.

In line 37, leave out "and 'debt'."

In page 169, line 13, at the end, insert:
debt 'includes any liability in respect of any obligation to repay capital sums by way of annuities and any liability under any guarantee, and 'debt charges' shall be construed accordingly.

In line 16, after "made," insert
before the commencement of Part III of this Act.

In line 20, at the end, insert:
guarantee' includes any obligation undertaken before the commencement of Part III of this Act to make payments in the event of the profits of an undertaking falling short of a specified amount.

After the words last inserted, insert:
goods' includes all materials, commodities, and articles.

In line 30, after the first "pension," insert:
in relation to persons in or formerly in the service of the Crown in India.

In line 32, leave out from "of," to "and," in line 33, and insert "any such person."

In page 169, line 36, after "interest, "insert" thereon or "any other addition thereto."

In line 38, leave out "and."

In line 38, at end, insert
'Provincial Act' and 'Provincial law' mean, subject to the provisions of this Section, an Act passed or law made by a Provincial Legislature established under this Act.

In line 41, at the end, insert "and 'securities' includes stock."

In page 170, line 7, leave out from the beginning, to the second "to," in line 8, and insert:
Any Act of Parliament containing references to India or any part thereof.

In line 12, leave out "other," and insert "Legislatures courts, or."

In line 15, after "such," insert "adaptations and."

In line 16, at the end, insert:
being adaptations and modifications which appear to His Majesty in Council to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the provisions of this Act.
Any power of any legislature under this Act to repeal or amend any Act adapted or modified by an Order in Council under this Sub-section shall extend to the repeal or amendment of that Order, and any reference in this Act to an Act of Parliament shall he construed as including a reference to any such Order.

In line 18, leave out "Provincial Acts or to Acts," and insert "laws or Provincial Acts or laws or to Acts or laws."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

10.23 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: I had put down an Amendment to this Clause, which was not called, which would have inserted words to make it clear that in line 19 we were referring to an Indian State whether or not it had acceded to the Federation. I should like to ask whether the Clause as it stands covers both federated and other States, because I do not feel certain about the position.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The words "Indian State" in this connection include an Indian State whether federated or not federated. "Indian State" has always had the meaning that it has here, and in our opinion it would be undesirable and would lead to confusion to insert the words of my hon. Friend's Amendment.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. THORP: Has the attention of my hon. and learned Friend been drawn to the provisions of Clause 12 (1, b) where the words "Indian State" do not appear to apply to a State which is not Federated? In view of that fact and that there is a definition in the definition Clause is it not advisable to accept words to make the position quite clear?

10.25 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I will look into the point which my hon. and learned Friend has raised. Clause 12 is dealing with the functions of the, Governor-General under the Federation, and of course he has no functions of any kind except towards a Federated State. It may be that explanation meets the point which my hon. and learned Friend has put forward, hut. I will look into it.

The CHAIRMAN: If no hon. Member raises any point, I propose to put Clauses 290 and 291 together.

Viscount WOLMER: Might I raise a question on Clause 290?

CLAUSE 290.—(Operation of Part XIII.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.27 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: We are now entering on Part XIII which deals with the machinery for the transitional provisions. Some of the Clauses are very
complicated and the drafting is somewhat difficult to follow. It would help us very much if the Secretary of State would indicate how he expects this part of the Bill will operate. I ask him to do this because this part of the Bill will probably be in operation, for a considerable number of years. I think the Government expects that it will be in operation for at least five years, while some of us believe that the period will be not less than 20 years. It is important that the Committee should realise how the Bill will function. If the right hon. Gentleman will indicate that, it might save time in the consideration of other Clauses, because we may have fewer questions to ask him.

10.28 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I at once respond to the invitation of my Noble Friend. Neither the Government nor myself have ever ventured on any prophecy as to the length of the transitional period. I have never been drawn into any prophecy about the time; what I have always said is that I want to see the transitional period as short as possible. Whether the transitional period be short or not, the position generally speaking is as follows: The only change made in the system of Indian government as it exists now will be the change made by the setting up of provincial autonomy, which will mean the introduction of this strictly delimited list of subjects between the Provinces and the Centre. That list will come into force, the autonomous Provinces in future being responsible for the subjects set out in the provincial list. That in itself, as my Noble Friend will see, will make a difference between the transitional period and the present system of government, which is a unitary system of government.
Apart, however, from the fact that the Provinces will be administering the provincial subjects and on that account the activities of the Central Government will be restricted, the present system of government at the Centre will continue, namely, the Governor-General and his Council and the Legislature dealing with the subjects that still remain central subjects. Further than that, there will, of course, be no change in the position of the Viceroy in the field of paramountcy. The effect of what I am saying is that we shall make substantially no change,
except the changes involved in the Provinces becoming responsible for the Provincial subjects. I do not know whether in those few sentences I have made the position sufficiently clear, but, if I have not done so, perhaps my Noble Friend or some other hon. Member will ask further questions about it.

Viscount WOLMER: I would like to thank my right hon. Friend very much for the very lucid statement which he has given, but which does not answer all the points on which I have some doubt. Perhaps it will be more convenient to raise those points when we get to the particular Clauses.

Clause 291 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 292.—(Control of the Secretary of State.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.30 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: I should like to ask the Government whether the drafting of this Clause is not very involved. I would call the attention of the Committee to the wording:
The Governor-General in Council and the Governor-General, both as respects matters with respect to which he is required by or under this Act to act in his discretion and as respects other matters, shall be under the general control of, and comply with such particular directions, if any, as may from time to time be given by, the Secretary of State…
We have an Amendment down, which has not been selected, but I think that, on the question of the Clause standing part, the question ought certainly to be raised whether we should not insert words limiting the authority of the Secretary of State. Our Amendment was, in page 172, line 19, after the word "shall," to insert the words "subject to the provisions of this Act for the time being in force." Without some words of this sort, it would appear that the Secretary of State by this Clause is empowered to give orders to the Governor-General, which the Governor-General is bound to pursue. The Secretary of State might even give orders contrary to the provisions of the Act. For instance, the Secretary of State might order the
Governor-General not to put forward recommendations in accordance with Clause 285 of the Bill before a period of 10 years had elapsed. Surely, in a sweeping Clause of this sort, there ought to be some words limiting the action of the Secretary of State himself to the powers conferred upon him by the Section.

10.33 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: The object of this provision is to continue the present control of the Secretary of State. It would not be possible to order the Governor-General not to put forward resolutions in the way that my Noble Friend mentions, because, ex hypothesi, such resolutions must be presented to Parliament. All that this Clause does is to keep the control of the Secretary of State exactly as it is now, with the one exception so far as provincial autonomy is concerned. When provincial autonomy is set up, the position of the Secretary of State will be that set out in the Bill in connection with provincial autonomy. So far as the centre is concerned, the Secretary of State's control will continue just as before.

Viscount WOLMER: Where is that stated in the Clause?

Sir S. HOARE: This Clause only deals with the Governor-General.

CLAUSE 293—(Sterling loans.)

Sir S. HOARE: I beg to move, in page 173, line 19, at the end, to insert:
(4) No deduction in respect of taxes imposed by or under any existing Indian law or any law of the Indian, the Federal, or a Provincial Legislature shall be made, either before or after the establishment of the Federation, from any payment of principal or interest in respect of any loan contracted under this section.
The object of this Amendment is to continue in the transitional period the same arrangement for Indian loans, as far as Indian taxation is concerned, as exists at present.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 173, line 21, after "may," insert:
either before or after the establishment of the Federation.—[Sir S. Hoare.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

10.36 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: As you, Sir Dennis, did not select the Amendment standing in the names of my hon. Friends and myself —in page 173, line 8, to leave out, "of the persons present," and to insert, "of his advisers,"—I should like to put before the Secretary of State the importance of looking into the question to see whether, before the Report stage, he should not alter the words in the Bill in the direction of the Amendment to which I have referred. The Committee will remember that the advisers of the Secretary of State consist of a minimum of three persons or a maximum of six. In a committee of three persons, it is very difficult to say of what a majority would consist. I do not want to have a majority "of the persons present," but "of his advisers." Everybody would know what the majority of the committee was. If the majority were two, there might be only one person present, or there might be two persons present, in which case it would be impossible to decide what was a majority. This Clause deals with the very important matter of the raising of sterling loans—a matter of finance of the utmost importance. Therefore, if the advisory council of the Secretary of State is ever to operate in such matters as are contemplated in this Clause, it is reasonable to ask that there should be in this case a majority "of his advisers" and not merely a majority of the persons who happen to be present on such an occasion. In a case of this magnitude and importance the Secretary of State would see that a reasonable attendance of his advisers were present when he consulted them. I only ask that the Secretary of State should look into that question before the Report stage.

10.39 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I do not think that there is really any reason to make a change in the present arrangement for the transitional period. No inconvenience and no loss so far as loans are concerned has resulted, and I suggest to the Committee that that being so, it is unnecessary, for the transitional period, to impose a restriction which, during the past 80 years, has not been found to be necessary.

CLAUSE 294.—(Legislature.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.40 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: In asking the Committee to consider this Clause I believe that we are calling attention to perhaps the most important matter that we have discussed to-day. It raises a question which occurs to us, unless there is some explanation from the Secretary of State that we do not understand, to be of supreme importance. The Clause appears to confer upon the present Legislature during the transitional stage all the powers which the Federal Legislature have and when it is established is to have, including all the powers of the Concurrent List and their enforcement on the Provinces, without either of the two great suggested safeguards which we have been told from time to time are so important, namely, the entry of the Princes as the stabilising element of the States, and at the same time the representation of opinion from the Provinces, expressed through indirect election,
In view of the present overwhelming Congress majority in the Assembly it would appear that this Clause as it stands now is really dangerous. From whatever point of view anyone may look upon the Bill that is dangerous, because we are likely to put into force certain provisions on quite a different basis from that which we have contemplated in the whole of our discussions. In the not unlikely event of Federation being indefinitely delayed, which everyone will admit is possible, it may be for two or three years or 10 years, and we think it very likely that it will be indefinitely postponed, we shall have responsibility at the Centre established for British India which will in fact be a subterfuge. That cannot be the intention of the Committee and I cannot believe that it is the intention of the Secretary of State. It appears to me to be a matter of supreme importance and I should be very grateful if my right hon. Friend would tell us that we are wrong in our fears, otherwise it is a matter upon which there must be very vital conflict of opinion.

10.43 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I agree that at first sight this Clause looks formidable, but when it is analysed it will be found to
be without the dangers contemplated by my hon. and gallant Friend. The word "powers" has a somewhat disturbing effect at first sight, but in actual practice "powers" in this Clause only means the powers in the Federal and Provincial lists; simply the Legislative powers conferred by the two lists. My hon. and gallant Friend seemed to fear that under this Clause the Central Legislature and the Central Government would obtain greater powers than they have now. The exact contrary is the case. In the first place, the setting up of provincial autonomy would in itself considerably restrict the field of the activity of the Central Legislature. The Central Legislature at the present time can legislate over the whole field of Indian government. In the transitional period it will not be able to legislate over the very wide field of Provincial legislation. My hon. and gallant Friend mentioned the question of the Concurrent List. There, again, the legislative field of the Centre is being considerably restricted. At the present time it has full power over the whole field. In future it will not have power over the Provincial List. My first answer, therefore, to my hon. and gallant Friend is that the Central Legislature so far from having greater powers than it has now will have smaller powers in the transitional period.
My second answer is that there can be no question of the executive at the Centre becoming responsible to the Central Legislature during the transitional period. The executive at the Centre during the transitional period will remain the Governor-General in Council, just as it is now, and there can be no question whatever that during the transitional period, a Government will be set up at the Centre responsible to the central legislature. I hope that these two answers have disposed of my hon. and gallant Friend's fears and shown him that this is really a machinery Clause, under which all that can happen is that the provincial legislatures will have powers over the provincial field, and that the central Government at the Centre will go on as they are now, with the exception that their powers will be less during the transitional period.

10.46 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I confess that I am completely fogged, although it may be
my failure to understand the position. At the commencement and conclusion of his remarks the Secretary of State indicated that the Provinces will have the full powers under this Bill in operation. That is what many of us have been led to imagine is quite impossible; that without the full Federation scheme you cannot go on with provincial government. That has been the main case against my hon. Friends and myself; that it is absurd to talk about provincial government unless you have full Federation. The Secretary of State commenced and ended his remarks by indicating to the Committee that, in spite of all our labours, all his arguments fall to the ground, and I think we should have further explanation before we part with the Clause.

10.47 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I at once give the hon. and gallant Member any further explanation he desires. We have always contemplated, everybody who has had anything to do with these inquiries has contemplated, that there must be a transitional period; that provincial autonomy is bound to come into operation at a date anterior to the coming into operation of Federation. What many of my friends and I have always said is that a transitional arrangement is bound to be in the nature of things a stop-gap, but we do not contemplate the transitional period is going on for ever. In a transitional period, I hope of a limited extent, it is possible to put up with anomalies which would become almost intolerable if the transitional period became permanent

10.48 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: We appreciate the fact that there must be a transitional period, and, therefore, I gather that two consequences must follow. One, that the Provinces will be in full exercise of their provincial powers and that as a consequence the Central Assembly, the present Federal Assembly, will be in possession of much more limited powers than hitherto. In my judgment, that is a very strong reason indeed for seeing to it that the transitional period is not unduly prolonged. If the Central Assembly as it is now is shorn of some of its powers still exists, with the Governor-General and his council exercising full authority as hitherto, and they find themselves in
a position of suspended animation, then the Government will be creating a state of resentment which. I am sure they would deplore. The lesson we get therefore from this Clause is that we should press onward with the completion of this scheme and the reduction of the transitional period.

10.50 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: Before pursuing the important point of which My hon. and gallant Friend spoke, I should like to ask one or two questions. I am not quite satisfied with the explanation given by the Secretary of State. Could he tell me here and now what is the necessity for the proviso to the Clause:
Provided that nothing in this section shall empower the Indian Legislature to impose limits on the power of the Governor-General in Council to borrow mooney.
Why is it necessary to make that particular exception, if the first part of this Clause gives no more powers than he said in his speech? I gather from what he said that the effect of this Clause is to extend it to the transitional legislature not only concurrently but also to the Federal as well. The Secretary of State said that is quite true, and that it is after all a great deal smaller than at present. Why then is this proviso necessary? It does not seem to me quite consistent with what the Secretary of State said; if that proviso is necessary you should have one or two other provisos as well.

10.52 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If the Noble Lord will look at Clause 158 he will see that there is a Clause that will come into operation when the Federation comes into operation, saying that the executive authority of the Federation extends to borrowing, the expenditure being limited from time to time and fixed by Act of the Federal Legislature. The Federal Legislature will have power to fix by Act the extent of the borrowing Act. I believe the Noble Lord introduced an Amendment on that Clause to provide that it should not be particularly rigid. It is in the nature of a new power conferred on the Federal Legislature when it comes into force, and it is necessary to have a proviso to make it quite clear that the earlier part of the Clause does not confer that power on the existing Legislature.

Viscount WOLMER: It says that within such limits as may from time to time be fixed by act of the Federal Legislature. If it has not come into being, how can that work?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The first part of the Clause confers powers which shall be exercisable by the Indian Legislature, and these are words giving the Federal Legislature powers of imposing limits. It is not intended that this power shall be exercisable by the Indian Legislature.

Viscount WOLMER: Is that the only point for which this Clause exists? I must take it that it is so. It seems rather alarming on reading the Clause for the first time. In answer to what fell from the hon. Member who spoke last, I should like to say this: It seems to him immaterial as to whether the Constitution is going to work well or not, or whether all conditions are fulfilled.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I do not know who gave the Noble Lord authority to say that: I did not.

Viscount WOLMER: Perhaps if the hon. Member would listen long enough he would bear my reasons. He has just said that if Federation does not come as quickly as he would like, he will do every-think he can to speed it up. His party will do everything possible to speed up Federation. I say with all respect that that is a disastrous approach to the whole problem. The Government have made the arrival of Federation contingent on certain conditions, most of which, if not all, are accepted by hon. Members opposite. We on this side base our opposition to Federation, not on any objection to principle, but merely because we believe that the necessary conditions cannot be fulfilled within a near time. We believe that events will prove that this part of the Bill will probably last for a generation—a generation which is a very short time, after all, in the history of India. It is very unfortunate that the Secretary of State should allow himself to utter phrases like that to which he has just given expression—that prolongation of this period would be intolerable. What is intolerable is something that cannot be borne. If the conditions which are necessary to Federation are not forthcoming this transitional period will have
to be borne. It is much better that everyone should make up his mind not to try to bring in Federation until the conditions really do exist.

10.57 p.m.

Colonel GRETTON: The Secretary of State made a very interesting statement. He has explained to us that this transitional period will be in the hands of the present Legislature, with rather less power than at present, that is, excluding the power of borrowing money. We asked the Government how long the period is likely to last. They say they cannot give any promise or undertaking. My hon. Friends have pointed out that the conditions of Federation are laid down in the Bill by the Government themselves. This transitional period may last for an indefinite time, under conditions which the Secretary of State has said are intolerable. We are really faced with a most serious situation. The present Legislature is for an indefinite period to exercise all the powers of Federation, with one financial exception. It really is a most intolerable position and one which is a great surprise to most
of us. We cannot accept that position as it stands. We must press the matter further and get a further explanation. The Government condemn their own proposal. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) called attention to the fact that the present Legislature is dominated by the Congress party which is going to refuse to operate the terms of this Bill.

It being Eleven o'Clock The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes after Eleven of the Clock.